Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Greatest Guitar Album

I'm not an experienced editor of Wikipedia, and thus do not know who to add citation links, but I do have a link to a site that gives Guitar World's list of the 100 greatest guitar albums of all time, which IV tops. The link is [1] I also have the actual issue right in front of me. It's the October 2006 issue.

A Bunch of helpfull info

I found the entire story to the naming of Led Zeppelin. It's in an interview in a book, "Bass Heroes" Edited by Tom Mulhern. In an interview with John Entwistle he states (about leaving the band, "I was going to leave the Who every other week! At one point, Keith and I were going to form our own band with Jimmy Page, Keith said, 'It'll probably sink like a lead balloon,' so I said, 'Why don't we call it Led (note, we know that it's supposed to be "Lead" but the reporter wrote it as knew) Zeppelin and Keith agreed. We even planned an album with a picture of the Hindenberg going down in flames and the bands name in red letters at the top." Summarized, Richard Cole, the drive for the two, lost his license for speeding. So John and Keith had to fire him. He then went to work as a production manager for Jimmy Page. I don't know how to word this, and i don't want to ruin this articles chance to be a featured article again, so I will leave this information here, along with it's bibliography:

Bass Heroes. Jisi, Chris. Comp. Tom Mulhern. San Francisco, CA: GPI Books, 1993. 91-92. -- C33 Four

have a look at this and tell me what you think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coda_%28album%29#Compilation.3F Please leave some comments on your opinions. Lord revan 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

i have heard that theory, but i have also heard the remark was originally was from Keith Moon, and John Entwistle took credit because he was jealous that their dream band didn't happen. Ledzepluvr 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More Photos Please

I think I speak for many when I say this article is badly in need of more photos with good captions--especially concert photos. This would aid in breaking up the large swathes of text, so it would be great if some good image contributers could help out with this. Two photos is a ridiculously small amount for an article of this size. Thanks. 71.76.219.92 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to go to <led-zeppelin.com>, they have many many MANY! pics of the band hanging out, rehearsing, promo shots, concert clips, and individual member photos. They are under "photo gallery"(or a similar name...tons there) and "photo of the month"(on which you can go back years and look at the pictures. By the way, they'll all captioned, so you know what it is that you're looking at. :P Ledzepluvr 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LETS PUT THESE GODS INTO A FEATURED ARTICLE

I MEAN C'MON NOW, MARIAH CAREY? THAT'S LAUGHABLE, AND NOT LED ZEPPELIN? YOU PEOPLE FAIL HORRIBLY Zabrak 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Starcaster 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)I concur.

I think it's a great idea that such an influential artist be promoted to feature article status. As for "you people fail horribly" - that includes you! Wikipedia is for and by everyone. Take the initiative to improve the article yourself. - Slow Graffiti 03:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be pretty cool for this to become a featured article, too, but it's worth pointing out that a subject gets a featured article because the article is good, not because of the quality or importance of the subject. That's why the featured articles cover such a wide range of stuff; otherwise every featured article would be on Leonardo da Vinci or World War II. I haven't read the Mariah Carey article, but if it became a featured article, I assume it was because it's (ahem) well put together. MrBook 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

everyone here is 100% correct...has anything hapenned since this discussion? (Sept 13)

Not that I noticed...Billvoltage 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Evermore

The song 'The Battle of Evermore' is based on 'The Silmarillion', not 'Lord of the Rings'.62.30.162.46 13:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, The Silmarillion wasn't published until 1977. Led Zeppelin IV was released in 1971. Sykil 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Battle of Evermore was based off of a battle in Scotland?

Lord of the Rings was actually written hundreds of years ago...of course variations of the story exist in many forms. I have heard on many occasions that Led Zepplein (especially Jimmy Page) were big fans of the story and its many subliminal messages... discuss

Yes, Led Zeppelin were huge lord of the rings fans which can be proved by many of there songs including Misty Mountian hop. But, this song was not mainly based on LOTR or The Silmarillian but was mainly about an ancient battle between the Celts and the Britains. Although there are references to LOTR such as "The dark lord rides in force tonight" and "The Ringraiths ride in Black" the song is not about it. {{User Zackattack141)) 10:31 November 7 2006.

• • They were Lords of the Ring fans (as reference to Gollum in "Ramble On" proves, but much of the Lord of the Rings-esque imagery is based on chared Celtic and ?Norse? mythology

This page needs more pics

U know, live perfomances, etc. -Dragong4

I agree - zackattack141

Strange sentence in regards to timeline

This statement:

Almost thirty years after the group decided they were unable to continue after the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980...

Does not make sense. I don't know exactly when they decided to call it quits, but it certainly wasn't 30 years after Bonham died. The smallest number would be on the order of 12 years (68ish to 80).

Bbonet 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Brentholio

(No offense but) you're just reading it wrongly. It's not refering to how many years they lasted; it's refering to how many years after Bonham died. Though, it is pretty wordy. I'll shorten it. Sykil 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it as in "30 years after 1980"?

Well it was ALMOST 30 years ago.

--FrasierC 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

An anonymous contributor is insisting that the entire discography and trivia sections be deleted. Just about every Featured Article that we have on Wikipedia for a band has a discography in the main article, sometimes with an expanded discography in a separate section. It's absolutely vital part of any good article on a band, because... well, it's what they've produced, right? Remember, Wikipedia:The perfect article "is nearly self-contained; i.e., it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."

As for the trivia section, it brings some interesting little bits of additional information into the article. If it's being removed because of concerns about the length of the article, then let's address that massive chunk of text in the History section that comprises much of the article; perhaps pare it down, move a lot of the extraneous detail to a separate article, and make it less imposing for a casual reader. -/- Warren 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This continues to be a problem; this edit by 71.76.212.61 is the latest in a series of attempts to remove information from the article. This user has now been asked three times to discuss their deletions here on the talk page, and they've yet to do so. -/- Warren 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

": If you can't be civil (something you've repeatedly demonstrated problems with in the past) and work within Wikipedia's guidelines, then the encyclopedia will benefit from your lack of participation. Most of your time here has been spent in some pointless debate about who a better guitar player is, and deleting entire sections because, in your estimation, it's a "waste of space". This kind of behaviour doesn't result in a better encyclopedia. -/- Warren 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)"

Actually, you are the only user who has ever harassed me. In the years I have spent on this site, I have made countless contributions to various articles on novels, movies, and persons. To say that all I've done is engage in one pointless debate is ridiculous and completely unfounded. If I want to engage in a fun discussion with a fellow user I will do so, and that is that. That you would waste the time to read such a "pointless" discussion destroys your own argument. I will not be returning here so feel free to be a juvenile and say "good riddance" and all of that. 71.76.216.220 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in Controversy section

I just had a quick look through your article, and it seems to me that the listing of "Moby Dick" as a uncredited cover of the Estes song is not correct. Moby Dick is a long drum solo with an instrumental intro. and ending. The Zeppelin song off the BBC sessions "The Girl I Love She Got Long Black Wavy Hair" IS a cover of the Estes song and is credited as such. Moby Dick uses a similar guitar riff, but has no lyrics. Moby Dick actually came out of a concert drum solo by Bonham called "Pat's Delight". 147.155.2.164 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After some more research, it seems this whole "controversy" section was lifted from an album review site. They don't cite any source that says "Moby Dick" was lifted. It seems that this claim was made because "Moby Dick" is similar to "The Girl I Love She Got..." from the BBC sessions. The instrumental riffs are very similar between the two songs, but the riff is a Page invention. The original Estes song was basic blues guitar. I have removed "Moby Dick" from the controversy section because it does not take any material from the Estes song. 147.155.2.164 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Im considering editing the whole thing. It is a contentious issue with Zep especially in the case of blues/folk tunes. As many of these are traditional anyway( and nearly all have totally different arrangements, guitar parts, etc )just how controversial are the credits? A good example of this is "In My Time Of Dying." Yes, the lyrics are a lift from Blind Willie Johnson's "Jesus Gonna Make Up My Dying Bed" but the music is completely different. There is a school of thought suggesting that the likes of Willie Dixon were merely collecting and copyrighting traditional blues tunes rather than writing them, in much the same way A.P Carter did with country music and it is important to bear that in mind here. Im not saying that kind of curating isnt valuable it just seems a little disengenous to then criticise Zep for lifting a lyric or 10! Samgb 10:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This Controversy section is copied from here:

http://www.warr.org/zep.html

It is also completely wrong. I have changed it so it is more accurate, but have not cited any of these. I believe I am correct in all that I put, but still, I vote for a deletion, instead putting a short section on Led Zeppelin's court cases that were because of the accusations against them.--FrasierC 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Delete it please. Copies from smirking, cynical, bullshit-ridden, smart-arse website not required in encyclopedia thanks very much.Samgb 09:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find it disappointing that there's not at this time any reference I can see in the article to Zep's appropriation of songs that they did not write. Something along the lines of "Like many of their contemporaries, such as The Rolling Stones and Cream, Led Zeppelin drew heavily from old folk and blues standards for their repertoire, but unlike those artists', Page and Plant regularly took credit for songs that were demonstrably derived from previously published works." I'm a fan of the band and I'd never suggest that they didn't add much to the songs they appropriated, but I can still call a spade a spade and recognize that the fact that they plastered their own names on the songs was pretty scummy, without even getting into the numerous lawsuits to back that up. There's a great, well-referenced article at Perfect Sound Forever that could certainly serve as a reputable source on this stuff. It's not POV to include this kind of thing and I'm not suggesting some huge entry cataloguing every borrowed riff and lawsuit. I just think there should be some acknowledgement, 'cause the issue isn't going to disappear. Anazgnos 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even as another fan, I concur. This is a key part to Zeppelin history. I'm surprised the blues artists made such little of it... I don't even care about them not paying these guys but not to acknowledge them as the writers of songs that went on to be so popular?--Zoso Jade 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase

I don't know much about Led Zeppelin, but in my opinion, the following sentences (appearing in the first section of the article) need to be rephrased:

"Page had joined the Yardbirds in 1966 playing bass guitar while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument, then switching to lead guitar."

The last part is misleading: Who switched to lead guitar? Was it Dreja or Page? Usually one refers to the last mentioned person, which is Dreja. However, it would be strange if Dreja switched to lead guitar, because, then, why was he getting comfortable with "that instrument", which is bass guitar?

So please, make clear who switched to lead guitar. To make this clear, maybe we need EM dashes around "while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument"? Or something else. Just rephrase it please, to make it clear.

I agree, it's clumsy writing. I've added parentheses - further clarification might become long winded, so if this still doesn't work, I'd recommend cutting it to say only that Page joined the Yardbirds in 1968, and played lead guitar.

"Led Zeppelin was formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page. Page had joined the Yardbirds in 1966, first playing bass guitar (while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument), then switching to lead guitar."

Better? TheMadBaron 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Country???

"On the description of Zep's sound, the genre "country" is included. I think whoever put that needs to give an example on here or there of a country song by Zep. Otherwise, it needs to go. I don't think I've ever heard Plant singing country..."

In my time of dying and Gallows Pole. It definately isn't conventional country but the connection is definately there. Country and folk are interchangable phrases in many cases.

I am the person who put country there. I did a research project on rock and roll and have thurough knowledge of the subject on many levels. In my time of dying and Gallows Pole are examples, but what about Tangerine and Bron-Y-Aur Stomp amongst many others?? Let me know if you need more examples, but for now I have changed it back to say country and maybe it needs more debate...

Just listened to some Zeppelin not too long ago, and was surprised to hear the song "Hot Dog." There's definite country influence there. Perhaps it was meant to be more humorous and a bit derisive, but nonetheless, it was definitely a country/rock song. So I now agree that Zep did have some country influence, albeit small.

How was it "small"? Just because they didn't record whole albums of country songs? Just because a band isn't playing that genre on an album per album basis dose not mean that style of music only played a small role in their influence. Just take a well known country singer (Kenny Rogers for example) he was heavily influenced by Jazz, but you wouldn't be able to tell it by listening to his Greatest Hits CD! 74.65.39.59 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Errors?

07/23/2006

I read this and am irritated by the use of "were" versus "was". "Were" is typically used with a plural subject, "was" with a singular. They "were", he "was", etc.

Led Zeppelin is a singular, not a plural. It is a singular entity.

Which sounds better?

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band, and are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of all time."

OR

"Led Zeppelin was an English rock band widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of all time."

OR "Led Zeppelin wasn't an English rock band not particularly widely regarded as almost one of the most popular and perhaps slightly influential musicality groups of all tea-times." I think you'll agree this is best.

As for external links, there are a few very good ones related to live Zeppelin recordings (bootlegs) that may be of interest to readers of the article. www.stryder.de, www.royal-orleans.com, and http://uuweb.led-zeppelin.us/. I think these should be added, unless anyone has any objections...

Also, should John Paul Jones personal site should be on the external links, www.johnpauljones.com? I know he has his own page, so I don't know if this article's external links needs to be cluttered up.

Led Zeppelin was is American
Led Zeppelin were is British
Led Zeppelin and is Wubbish

We had the same problem about plural vs singular on the Queen page, and it was agreed, that, because it was a problem with American English vs British English, it should be done with the bands country, in which Led Zeppelin are/were (not is/was) is correct. This is because they are British, and accoring to the usage rules, it should be the country from which the entity orginates. If you would like to view the Queen discussion, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_%28band%29/Archive_2#Singular_or_Plural

I hope this helps to clear things up. Billvoltage 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin, a group. A group, more than one, not singular! Led Zeppelin were the best & one of the most influential groups of all time! 886Zeppelin 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretentious argument. The term 'group' refers to a single collection of many things. In itself, 'group' is singular. The words 'band' or 'family' are no different. 'Groups', plural form, would refer to many groups of things just as 'computers' refers to many single computers. 'A group of computers' refers to the collection of computers and not the individual computers themselves. You cannot say 'groups of computers' if you wish to refer to one single collection. Therefore, "the band are" is incorrect; "the band is" is consistant with simple subject-verb agreement grammar rules. The grammar relevance is simple logic and not deteremined by "UK/US English". --Bentonia School 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Really that influential?

From the opening line: "one of the most influential music groups of the 20th century." Led Zep were brilliant but were they really one of the most influential? Actually heavy rock seems to have become quite a backwater, with other trends in popular music now much more prominent - there have been a few LZ samples in hip hop tracks and a few heavy rock groups strive to imitate them, but isn't that about it? Actually Robert Plant's influence has if anything been stronger as a solo artist. I wonder if this line should be modified? MarkThomas 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no it shouldnt:) Obviously you dont like them Mark but that doesnt make it so! The list of bands influenced by zep is-- almost endless: REM's Peter Buck, Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age, Beastie Boys, Aerosmith, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, the White Stripes and recently Corinne Bailey Rae. They all dig them! Anyway, lets have a vote: Wo thinks they are one of the most influential bands of the 20th )century? i say YES. Who is with me? Samg 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samgb, no question, yes. Hard rock as a general catagory, very much a part of the 80s and 90s, owes them a tremndous debt. They are THE hard rock band.

Hi Samgb, and not true that I don't like them - I adore them! But I'm wondering about the objectivity of the statement that's all. I agree they've been influential, but even going on your list - on Nirvana - OK just, but in general grunge owes little to the Zepp. Aerosmith -yes. RHCP - no. White Stripes - obviously yes, but they are an oddity. Corinne Bailey Rae - how on earth do you get there? Actually I just went and looked at the (useful in discussions like this) Musicmatch followers list. It has a long list but they are mostly fairly obscure bands. The best known it gives are Radiohead (tenuous connection) and Supergrass (better). But "one of the most influential" - no. MarkThomas 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that they influenced huge amounts of Metal bands, in that they created the genre. They influenced a generation with Stairway to Heaven as well, in that many picked up a guitar to play that song. And what has popularity got to do with influence? It's completely irrelevant how popular the bands they influenced are, it's how many they influenced. Anyway, they helped delevop the rock scene of the 1970s and influenced many bands in 1980s onwards. There is no criteria for their influence to be popular. --FrasierC 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't what the opening statement implies FrasierC - they "are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of the 20th century" - that to me and I think to any fair-minded and objective reader implies that there is unanimity that they have this stunning status, and I'm just making the point that whilst that may be how it's seen amongst heavy rock fans and older music types, I very much doubt that it this highly sycophantic summary of their God-legend status still holds true amongst the wider public (it probably didn't even in 1980), and this statement does imply mass-influence and popularity. I have posted a suggested rephrasing. See what you think.MarkThomas 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that they do have mass popularity and influence. They have influenced many, many groups. Whether these groups are popular or not is wholly irrelevant. --FrasierC 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

it is common knowledge now that they are overrated but its become such a popular lay assumption little can be done about it now. - ishmaelblues

You have no basis for that assessment, except for your own opinions. --FrasierC 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mark, I think he is confusing "influence" with "imitation" and "popularity". I'll expose my bias here and say I grew up listening to Led Zep and still think they're the greatest rock band ever, by far. That being said, I don't want to hear every new band trying to be carbon copies (imitating them). "Influence" speaks to "inspiration". If somebody listens to Gallows Pole and then writes a song he sees as Hangman, pt II, it may sound nothing like the original (nor even mention it) but he will have been "influenced" by LZ. Influence is not always apparent or obvious (such as "sampling"). True influence is far more nuanced than simple imitation. If I listen to Over the Hills and Far Away and get inspired to write a certain song...that's influence, even if Page's mellow riffs or Plant's screeches are totally lacking from my song. But the others are also correct in saying that there are hundreds of acts that have obviously been influenced by LZ as judged by the numerous covers out there. Last night, for example, Wynona Judd (of all people) did a cover of Rock and Roll on the CMA Music Fest live on CBS...go figure!--WilliamThweatt 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So much confusion here about what we are actually attempting to discuss. Nobody is saying they weren't a great band. The statement I am challenging (and which you altered back WilliamThweatt without the slightest attempt to justify) is as follows:

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band and are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of the 20th century.[1]"

"Check out for example NPR's poll of polls on the top music of the 20th Century.... [2] - do you see a Led Zeppelin track there? Now look at the list of best selling albums ever. There is one Led Zep album in a list dominated by Garth Brooks and Barbara Streisand and the like; would you say artists like that have been influenced by Jimmy and Robby? Come off it. This is like a lot of Wikipedia; the page is essentially a cultists hang-out and if you dare to objectify the page, a load of sad people immediately put it back to where they "think it should be" in their tiny-minded way, eg, a mix of love-in and God-worship. Why don't we have a new type of "Holy Shrine to the Zeppelin" Infobox too? And what's truly funny about this is that most of us English have some perspective on the likes of Led Zep, eg, as faded rock dinosaurs with no contemporary relevance, yet the US cult-junkies are still in full blown worship mode. All very sad. MarkThomas 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

You are clearly confusing the area we are discussing. They influenced bands, yes? They are thus an influence. It's wholly irrelevant if those bands weren't popular, although I think Guns N' Roses may have something to say about that. They influenced people end of story. Whether they are an influence now and how popular the bands that they influenced is irrelevant.

And I don't think your personal attack is fair or just. You edit the page because you think it's not right. Then you attack those who dare to disagree with you. That's not fair at all. That's just you being wholly biased and getting personal because others have an opinion that differs to your's.

"that most of us English have some perspective on the likes of Led Zep,"

Who are you to comment on what "us English" think? Guess what, I think the original sentence is fine. I'm English. Maybe I'm outdated, maybe I'm a cultist. Whatever I am, I do not insult someone because my opinion differs to their's, or someone dares question my perceived infinite wisdom.

"Check out for example NPR's poll of polls on the top music of the 20th Century.... "

Well, there's conclusive evidence for Wikipedia. It's a poll, thus is not objective. Still, it proves your point, so it must be right.

You keep confusing influence with influencing popular bands. --FrasierC 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well so much for respect, Mark. I was trying to be WP:CIVIL and assume your good faith. I did justify my revert by including a source for the claim. First of all I recommend that you start by actually reading the sentence in question. The wording isn't indicating the WP is making the blanket factual statement that LZ was the most popular and influential group. On the contrary, it says that it is "widely regarded" as such. And I provided a source (a BBC source, no less -- written by and for "you English") that verifies that statement (that they are "regarded to be the most popular and influential", not that they necessarily are). The page is already "objectified" in the distancing conveyed by the wording. You were seeking to change the meaning (because you, personally don't beleive they are one of the most popular/influential bands--even though that's not even what the sentence says). And, FYI, I am just passing through; I don't "hang out here", today was the first edit I've ever made here, in fact, I've never even read the article past the first three paragraphs.--WilliamThweatt 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will express only one opinion here. That all editors should keep their RV war off of the main page and leave it on the discussion page until a concensus is reached. If a concensus can't be reached then you will have to put in a request for mediation. The previous wording has a citation and on Wikipedia cited statements have more power than personal POV. One user is already bordering 3RR as well as being reported to the Administrator noticeboard for being uncivil. Anger22 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly about semantics. Can I make a suggestion? Either tone it down a bit (Led Zep are widely popular and influential...) or reference the cited source explicitly (...described by the BBC as "one of the most influential bands of the rock era"). Few people can deny that they are influential, and nobody can deny that the BBC described them as such, but "one of the most influential" is an opinion that can be disputed, as is happening at the moment. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the most popular is a fact though. So that would have to be removed in that version. It's a good idea though. What do others think? I would say that they are, factually, one of the most influential bands of all time, but if we are to be even more middle of the road then using the second option you suggest is better in my view. --83.100.224.233 23:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In truth, describing anything or anyone as one of the most anything is highly subjective, simply due to how vague the phrase is. It could be interpreted to mean one of the 5 most... or one of the 300,000 most... MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"One of the most influential" would be more accurate if we were to more narrowly define the genres of music to the kinds of music they were known for. They have been very influential in certain genres, absolutely, but also quite irrelevant in many others. Electronica acts like Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream and the work of Brian Eno are also regarded as highly influential -- just not on groups that most Led Zeppelin fans have heard of. :-) Punk, New Wave, Reggae, and Disco are just a few other major Western musical styles that were not influenced by Zeppelin in any measurable fashion. The world of music is much bigger than hard rock.

Case in point: there are probably far more people who can hear the chorous of ABBA's Dancing Queen in their heads (in spite of years of therapy) than can hear Dazed and Confused or other seminal Zeppelin tunes. ....... your welcome. ;-) -/- Warren 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Eric Clapton article labels him as: one of the most respected and influential musicians of the rock-era, without much debate. The "rock-era" reference takes the "of all time" arguement away. Thoughts? Anger22 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That should probably be changed, too. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry,Fail?_} 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to many articles. Often the phrase "one of the first" is used. One of the first in terms of five bands, or in terms of one hundred. An example of this is the Cream article.

--FrasierC 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but as much as I'd like to list everything that's vague or subjective about every page on my watchlist, shouldn't we be using this page to discuss Zeppelin? :) MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly fine to keep it how it is, but also equally fine to change it to the according to the BBC suggestion. --FrasierC 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From The Beatles, a Featured Article no less: who continue to be held in the very highest regard for their artistic achievements, their huge commercial success, and their ground-breaking role in the history of popular music, not to mention popular culture.

So applied to this article: who continue to be held in high regard for their artistic achievements, their commercial success and their influential role in the history of Rock music. Anyone??? Anger22 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Anybody else? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 01:16 & 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it as it is, but this suggestion is acceptable and I would reluctantly bow to consensus if necessary.--WilliamThweatt 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We're back to where we were. The point is that despite all the nonsense people have used in defence of it, the statement puts them in the forefront of 20th Century music, up there presumably with Louis Armstrong, Burt Bacharach, Miles Davis, the Beatles and so on. I think anyone who thinks extensively about music would regard this sweeping statement as rubbish. It doesn't matter (despite all the slurs against me implying that it's my point of view) what I think (and I repeat that I personally like LZ a lot), this is about the objectivity of WP and as with many of the rock star pages, the opener is way way over the top. It's the sort of thing you might have believed at 18 in 1985 but alas no longer! So can someone else please now modify it to something more likely, as people are so determined to stop this being objectified they will try to have me removed if I do, despite the fact that all I am trying to do is challenge a ludicrously overblown intro line. Thanks. MarkThomas 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a slur that it's your own POV. It is. When you say, "I think that…" that's an opinion, not a fact. Led Zeppelin were hugely influencial. Read up on it. Whether they were as influencial as the Beatles is a different story entirely. --FrasierC 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, Read up on it. Corinne Bailey Rae doesnt sound like Zep. However, in a recent interview in Mojo magazine she went into some detail about how much she loved them, was influenced by them. Much the same applies to Peter Buck, Red Hot Chillis guitarist John Frusciante and now that I think of it, Tori Amos, who couldnt sound less like Zeppelin but once admitted that Whole Lotta Love gave her 'Oreo cookies in her panties'. Im not sure what that means but i think she likes the band! She actually went on to duet with Robert Plant on Down By the Seaside on a tribute album the name of which escapes me right now!. As the poster above states, you are confusing 'influenced by' with 'copies'. If that were the criteria i would have included rubbish like Whitesnake, Kingdom Come(remember them? yuck!) None of the above sound like Zeppelin. All of the above were influenced by them. p.s stop bickering you lot! Samgb 08:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually at least it's not as bad as the Rick Wakeman page intro which says he "is considered by many to be the most influential keyboardist of all time" -eeek. The "most influential" disease is spreading across Wikipedia and we are all powerless to stop it! MarkThomas 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

i like a bit of prog as much as the next man but jesus! im off to that page to change it to "is considered by many YES fans to be the most influental keyboardist of all time" :) Samgb 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

you beat me to it you swine! :)Samgb 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding influence - you don't have to sound like a band to be influenced by them, but not everyone who has ever heard a Led Zep album is instantly influenced by them, either. It is possible to be a Zeppelin fan and not claim them as an influence.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. We so far have two suggestions to combat the "most influential" disease...

1. Anger22's suggestion (...continue to be held in high regard...) which acknowledges their influence, but doesn't try to put a value on it.
2. My suggestion (...described by the BBC as...) which offers the current opinion, but doesn't try to state it as fact.

What does everyone think? #1? #2? Both? Any more suggestions? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 11:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Number #1. (I put no. 2 at first, but meant 1). --FrasierC 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) --FrasierC 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Number #1, but with the line as "continue to be held in high regard especially by hard rock fans" MarkThomas 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"by Hard rock fans" would limit the statement false as LZ are cited as an influence by musicians in every genre of music, not just Hard rock. Anger22 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tee hee. _every genre_. Led Zepp are such an influence on classical music and their impact on Madonna and Michael Jackson has been incalculable. And on the other hand we have reality away from the Zepp Heads. MarkThomas 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the fans on this page will also be contributors to [Star Trek the Next Generation] and can I point you all to that page as (by the standards of this page) a model of objectivity? It even has a critiques section, imagine! The slavering obeisance present here is not to be found at all on that page. Look and learn. MarkThomas 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the fans on this page will also be contributors to [Star Trek the Next Generation]"

How the hell do you get there?

It's funny. You go on and on about objectivity, and yet you yourself do nothing but insult everyone who dares to disagree with your opinion. The irony is beautiful. People disagree with you.

Welcome to the world. Just because we don't agree makes us subjective and you some kind of God. You ain't bigger than Jesus, and nowhere near as big as the Beatles. So be polite and argue your case nicely. It helps the world go round.

Just because you come in and go: "I THINK IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE. EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME!" Doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else who dares put their opinion on the matter needs to be insulted.

--FrasierC 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry FrasierC, you are right to pull me up on this - the fans on this page will also of course contribute to the Dr Who and Joe 90 pages, as well as another of the great classicists in 20th century music, Def Leppard. Thanks for the correction. MarkThomas 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC) image =

British DVD release

You really are maturity personified aren't you? People disagree with you. Get over it. Why can't you see people have other points of view? Why are you instantly right and everyone else is wrong? You cannot accept that people have different views. People do. Learn to live with it. You aren't God. You aren't an oracle. Shut up or play nicely.

--FrasierC 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will wager that if you asked 5,000 rock musicians--some famous, some not--what rock group influenced them most, Led Zeppelin would be, BY FAR, the most common answer. Just because more people can hum an ABBA song than Dazed and Confuzed that doesn't mean ABBA is more influencial. Example: Just because more people today can hum Carrie Underwood's "Jesus Take the Wheel" than Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor that doesn't mean Carrie Underwood is more influencial than Johann Sebastian Bach! Popular novelties and fads cannot compare with deep musical insight and invention. To the point about popularity, only one or two rock/pop artists in history are more famous than Led Zeppelin and they are the Beatles and Elvis Presley. I know young people these days who can't tell you who ABBA and Barbara Streisand are, but they know Zeppelin--heck, look around you, it seems like one in ten kids is wearing a Zeppelin shirt. And we've all heard the sayings "guitar god", "rock gods", "god of rock"--those sayings started with and were originally meant to refer to one band: Led Zeppelin. That alone, the beginning of the association between pagan mythology and rock and roll, for which this band is responsible, is reason enough to call them of of the most important musical groups of all time. To the accusation that Zeppelin had an effect only on one genre, I can only say that you are exposing your ignorance when it comes to Zeppelin's catalogue of music which includes some of the first use of synthesizers, one of the first true punk songs (Communication Breakdown), the popularization of folk rock, experimentations in reggae (D'yer Maker), and revolutionary experimentations in eastern music (Kashmir), not to mention their specialties: blues, folk, metal, psychedelia, etc. This is a band that contains the most imitated drummer of all time, one of the most imitated guitarists of all time, the most imitated hard rock vocalist of time, and a bassist/keyboardist that can play dozen different instruments. I cannot think of a single group that is more diverse and important to popular music in the 20th Century. 71.76.219.92 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Get an account and sign in - then we will take your arrogant rv's more seriously. MarkThomas 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• What a ridiculous rant. You can't think of a single group that is more diverse and important to popular music in the 20th Century than Led Zeppelin? Try the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who. Clashwho 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You, MarkThomas, clearly have the ability to be arrogant whether or not you are signed in, not that signing in is relavent in the first place. Persons may improve this encyclopedia and engage in discussion regardless of whether or not they choose to register. Dume7 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. Why do you consider the above user arrogant? Because they disagree with you? And why would you take someone more seriously because they have an account on Wikipedia? --FrasierC 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like waiting for a concensus would take to long and ultimate be a fruitless task. I've added both suggestions for now, if everybody can leave the main page alone for a while and work on a concensus as to what to keep and what to change, it would do the article so much more good than a huge edit war. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, that BBC quote mentions the "rock era" which is an unfamiliar (at least to many people) and vague phrase. I want to ask everyone if they agree with this statement, which I think is objectively maintainable: Led Zeppelin are one of the most popular and influencial music groups in 20th Century popular music.

I don't see how any person that knows music history could disagree with that. If you don't, name five popular music groups of the 20th Century who are more popular and influencial and I'll withdraw myself from this debate. I don't think those groups exist. MarkThomas seems to think that people are trying to say that Led Zeppelin is the biggest musical event in history, which is not the case. He keeps bringing up solo artists like Louis Armstrong, which are not qualified in this statement about musical GROUPS.

As for groups Zeppelin directly influenced: Guns N' Roses, the White Stripes, Whitesnake, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Skid Row, Tool, Mötley Crüe, Ratt, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Rainbow, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Twisted Sister, Poison, Queen, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, ZZ Top, Bon Jovi, Metallica, The Answer, and the Black Crowes for starers. Are all of theses bands good? No, but that isn't the point. Dume7 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with rock era at all. 20th Century popular music is neither more or less objective, and nor is it better or worse. I agree with the edit as it stands, however, I am not bothered either way. --FrasierC 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. Meets all Wiki criteria with regards to references and NPOV. Anger22 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, everbody knows what the 20th Century is, but what is the "rock era"? When did it begin? Has it ended? If so, when? The mention of the "rock era" also implies that Led Zeppelin performed in only one musical style, which isn't true and is what I was combating in the first place. Dume7 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is sooo true Dume7. As well as rock, they played heavy rock, hard rock, and folk rock. They were also a little bit jazz rocky sometimes. Gosh it feels good to be amongst such knowledge. MarkThomas 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also they played mock reggae on occasion, and Blues rock, blues probably being their biggest influence. --FrasierC 22:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The rock era is a quotation from a BBC. Thus it is sourced. Surely all the rock era means is the start of rock and roll, until whenever rock does not exist in one form another. I see your point however. Why not just use "rock" or "popular music", instead of 20th Century?

As for rock implying they only had one music style; it doesn't in the slightest. It implies that they perform songs that are one form of rock or another. It does not imply that they only played one type of music. --FrasierC 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just the problem--many of their songs are not rock at all: Bron Y Aur, Down by the Seaside, Black Mountainside. 71.76.219.92

That's so true temporary user 71.76.219.92! Blues is nothing to do with rock, and Dred Zephelin were nothing to do with the blues. Joke! Anyway, have you come across _blues_. You can look it up here. The Bluze. That was a big influence. Indeed both Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have often mentioned it in interviews. So did the other chap whose name I can't bring to mind right now. What was it they're famous for anyway? And whatever happened to that drummer guy who was always slightly behind and out of rhythm? Anyway, sorry, got to go now, writing a 500 word essay on the Genesis page about why Phil Collins was so much better than whats-his-name. MarkThomas 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bron Yr Aur Stomp is a rock song, but with a country music influence. It is still a rock song though, I feel. Down by the Seaside is a mix of their skills in various genres. It's still a rock song at heart, again, in my view. Black Mountainside is an instrumental, but I would say it is still rock music. Of course, these strech the boundaries of rock music, as do many other Led Zeppelin songs. But I still think that most Led Zeppelin songs were definately at least partially rock. --FrasierC 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to quote one of the most popular and influential rock historians of the 20th Century, "Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." - Homer Simpson :) MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to start a new page entitled "Great Rock Gods that Are so Obviously Totally Massive that Even the Simpsons don't take the Michael"? I know we all would here. Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Led Zepp. Fantastic. Ooops. Forgot the 70s have ended there for a minute. MarkThomas 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your strange vendetta against the 1970's and its music has no place here. BTW, it's abbrieviated Led "Zep"--one 'p', and Def Leppard's success came in the 80s; I don't know a single hardcore Zeppelin fan that likes them. lol ;) 71.76.219.92 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I think you missed the meaning of the quote entirely. It was taking the piss. That's generally what the Simpsons do. And I second Mighty Moose's question.

--FrasierC 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homer on that one. lolDume7 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel we're not paying Ledley Zeppelino enough cultural homage; for example their influence on Lord of the Rings fans has been immense, and many people who like Blakes 7 also fancy Robert Plant. Could that all be somehow combined onto one marvellous page? Thanks. MarkThomas 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this a classic case of trolling, as hilarious as it is.

--FrasierC 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, Bron Y Aur, and Bron Yr Stomp are two different songs. I would argue neither are rock (Bron Yr Aur Stomp borders on bluegrass), but especially Bron Y Aur. As for Black Mountainside, there is simply nothing rock about it, if anything it's a combination of eastern (note the tabla drums) and folk music. They were a rock band first and foremost--I admit this--but to say they were only that is inaccurate IMO. Other well known songs that aren't rock (by my estimation, at least): Going to California, That's the Way, and I don't know how to classify Friends or Hats off to (Roy) Harper. Of course their are coutless other songs that have obvious Indian, classical (The Song Remains the Same), or folk influences. What does this have to do with Zeppelin's popularity or influence? 71.76.219.92 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"FrasierC, Bron Y Aur, and Bron Yr Stomp are two different songs." Yeah, I knew that, sorry about me putting down the wrong one though.

I think that all their songs have rock elements, however their songs are fusions of other genres.

And it has nothing to do with their popularity or influence, other than that "the rock era" was protested against because it implies Led Zeppelin did only one type of music. I was saying it suggests nothing of the sort. --FrasierC 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas, why are you so obsessed with my not signing in? Who cares? Your sarcasm is becoming old fast, and your attempts to defame Zeppelin have failed, and miserably so. What does does Phil Collins have to do with anything? Also, I'm pretty sure that he would readily admit that John Bonham is one of the greatest if not the greatest drummer of all time. And why have you mentioned so many solo artists? Louis Armstrong? Last time I checked, jazz trumpeters and parlor pianists weren't exactly burning up the charts, nor have they ever been influencial outside of there own extremely small, shrinking musical markets. I'm sorry, but jazz is a genre that has been in its death throes for the past twenty years, and I have perpective on it because I'm an American (how does your own medicine taste?). lol None of the songs I mentioned are blues based, which once again demonstrates your ignorance Zeppelin's musical catalogue. Led Zeppelin was influenced by the blues (which I have more perspective on because I'm an American, lol), fine--what is your point? Why don't you stop wasting your time here and improve and article on a topic about which your thinking isn't inexplicably skewed towards hatred? 71.76.219.92 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, Bron Y Aur is simply a solo acoustic peice based on a medeival folk tune--no vocals, no drums. Black mountainside is similar but with eastern Tabla drums. Where are the rock elements in these songs? Please point them out; I don't see how they could be construed as rock music. I guess I'm confused because on the one hand you maintain that the phrase does not imply that Zeppelin only did rock music, but on the other hand, you're saying they only did rock music. See what I mean? 71.76.219.92 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase implies neither that they only did rock music or that they did all sorts of music. I think you are missing my fundamental point; they were mainly a rock band. They were in the rock era. Therefore, the "rock era" quote implies exactly that, they were a very influencial rock band in the rock era. It does not imply that they only did one type of rock music. Do you see what I am saying? The rock era is a time period. It does not imply that they only did hard rock or blues rock, or any other genre of rock. They did many different kinds of rock, but I disagree that any of their songs could truly be called "blues", country or whatever solely. Not that it matters. The rock era implies a time period, not what music they play at any rate.

As for those Led Zeppelin songs; that is your opinion. I say that they do have rock elements, and are listed as such on websites, including Wikipedia. I agree; they stretch the boundaries of the definition of rock, but they are still rock. Black mountain side is definately a case in point; it is folk rock, I would say, but on the folk side, rather than the rock side. Whether I am wrong in your opinion or not is irrelevant; it does not make the BBC quote wrong. --FrasierC 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We both know that we have opinions--there's no need for us to tell each other; it doesn't exactly help to illuminate the discussion. The "rock era" does imply what music they play: you wouldn't want to say Barbara Streisand is one of the best singers of the "rock era" because she is not a rock artist and the rock era is not relavent to her. I say they were mainly a rock band, but they were not only a rock band. Please point out for me the rock elements in those songs. Black Mountainside and Bron Y Aur don't contain one single trait found in rock music. Just because the band played mostly rock that doesn't mean you can use a blanket statement and attatch rock to everything they do: folk rock, reggae rock, blues rock, because it is a gross oversimplification. That's exactly what happens when wikipedians start categorizing songs--they say to themselves "Bob Dylan played folk," and then they blindly categorize every single of his songs as folk, which is completely inaccurate. Are most of them folk? Yes. Are all of them folk? No. The same goes for Zeppelin. Are most of their songs rock? Yes. Are all of them rock? No. It just isn't that simple. Each song must be examined in and of itself, regardless of the genre generally associated with the creator of the music. I think if one does that they will find that groups like Zeppelin are much more deep than just "different types of rock". The BBC Quote is factually correct but, as with most things on Wikipedia the problem is a stylistic one; that is, I think there are better ways to acknowledge the scope of Led Zeppelin's work, and quotes are generally looked down upon as beginnings to articles. 71.76.219.92 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether I am not illuminating discussion or not. It's pointless. There is no point discussing what I think about the genre of Led Zeppelin's long list. It doesn't help the article in the slightest, and we are not going to reach a consesus. I do not wish to argue my case on this issue, because I still believe what I believe. I don't really care if you think I am wrong or not. Doesn't mean I have to somehow move from my POV because you refuse to accept it's credibility. Instead of wishing to argue about this further; think about the sentence at hand. You say that you think they are mainly a rock band. Whether you think that some of their songs are not rock is irrelevant. They were a rock band. Thus they are included in the "rock era" sentence. Do you see what I am saying? They were mainly a rock band, thus the BBC is right when it talks about the rock era. Whether or not one or two of their songs, in some person on the internet's opinion, were not rock, does not mean the term "rock era" is not correct. That's my point. Led Zeppelin were a rock band. Thus they can be classified as one of the most influential bands in the rock era. Simple as that. Just because you think they didn't just play rock, is of no concequence to that sentence. It does not imply that they just played rock, just that they were a rock band. --FrasierC 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence is too narrow, and quotes are an inferior way to open an article. We've been over this already: It's like saying in the opening sentence of the Leonardo Da Vinci article "Leonardo Da vince was a painter". It is factually true, but it is far too narrow because he was also a mechanic, inventor, botanist, poet, sculptor, historian, anatomist, musician, and politician--this scope of abilities should be acknowledged in the opening sentence Your argument is one that could just as easily apply to the opening sentence which I favored: "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band and are one of the most influencial and popular groups in popular music history." That sentence is accurate, acknowledges scope, and it isn't a quote, which shouldn't be used to open articles. The difference between the two statements is that one is more restrictive to rock music, which brings us back to the original point that you have so carefully pushed aside and refused to acknowledge: Were they only a rock band or were they not? I say they were not. You seem to say they were. I have given examples of songs which I feel have no connection to rock music, and have explained my reasoning for my categorization--you simply say they are rock songs and refuse to provide any reasoning why that is so. So I'll ask again, will you please point out the said "rock elements" in all of the mentioned songs? 71.76.219.92 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say they are a rock band. They are a rock band, by any criteria. The quote is not too narrow therefore. The quote is not "Led Zeppelin only played rock songs." It suggests that they were a rock band in the rock era. That's all. It's not narrow, and your analogy is not a comparison at all. The fact is the the quote is far more objective than just they are one of the most influential bands. It means that we acknowledge that there are people who may not feel this, even though, one could very well argue it's a fact. Remember, I am not arguing against your statement because I don't believe it's true. I am arguing against it simply because I think the BBC quote is fine. I think you are perfectly right in what you say about the popularity and influence of Led Zeppelin. And I'll tell you again, I have no intention arguing with you about the songs you have mentioned. I believe what I want to believe. I don't really care what you think, to be perfectly honest. It has no relevance to the article. Just because you think it's not rock doesn't make it so. Being excessively aggressive and maintaining they are not rock doesn't make it so, either. I am not worried particulary if you and others think your version is better, I just prefer this version. It seems the most objective to me.

--FrasierC 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that they are one of the most influencial bands just as much as it's a fact that the sun is the center of the universe. Are we supposed to leave room for geocentrists in the planetary articles? Saying Zeppelin isn't one of the most influencial bands would be just as silly. The mentioned songs are not rock, and that is also a fact; There are no room for your opinions in that case either. "I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit. 71.76.219.92 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

" The mentioned songs are not rock, and that is also a fact; There are no room for your opinions in that case either."

Who says? You? There are no room for your opinions either. That's the point. That's why the articles suppose to be neutral.

"I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit"

I'll tell you what's self centred; believing that just because I do not wish to argue over such a trivial matter, that you see fit to "edit the article as you see fit." I may not wish to argue or negotiate. That doesn't mean others don't want to. So it is not up to you to do "as you see fit", at all. This is an example of being self centred. Not not wishing to argue.

I am perfectly up for a reasonable discussion or debate. What you offer, however, is not a reasonable discussion or debate. It's just you saying; what I say is fact, there is no room for opinion here. Where's the argument? Do you see that calling someone self centred is rather hypocritical when you say your own opinion is a fact? What I am saying is that I am not worried if you think they aren't rock. You can discuss these two songs until your blue in your face, but you have not even read my main point, as you are too busy trying in saying your opinion is a fact. It matters not if two or three of their songs are rock or not. They were a rock band, yes? They were in the rock era, yes? Therefore, they were one of the most influencial bands in the rock era. That's my point, that you seem to skirt around quite brilliantly.

As I said before, you being excessively aggressive doesn't mean you can do as you see fit. It's unnecessary, quite frankly. --FrasierC 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have opinions--I have facts. I will edit as I see fit. Good day to you. 71.76.219.92 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well guess what; you don't have facts. That's absolute rubbish. Do you vote? Is it a fact whom the best party is? Who do you think is the best guitarist? Is that a fact?

And you have ignored my main point. Doing so is a self centred cop out. Please answer my point. It's funny, you accuse me of not illuminating discussion, and then you patently ignore my argument. Whose the hypocrite again?

Lastly, even if I don't want to argue, or, in actuality, you want to ignore my points with your supreme arrogance, that doesn't mean you can just change the article "how you see fit". You see, in this world, people are allowed to disagree. You see, saying "I don't have opinions, I have facts", isn't exactly illuminating discussion is it? --FrasierC 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I confess that I haven't read all of the above bickering, but FWIW, I don't believe that Led Zeppelin's widespread influence is seriously disputed, and I think that qualifying the statement by citing the BBC only serves to weaken the lead paragraph - it is, after all, Led Zeppelin's popularity and influence itself, rather than the BBC's assessment of such, which makes Led Zeppelin noteworthy. I note that the BBC do not site their sources for this statement, and as such, I don't see that this reference really achieves anything. It is not necessary to cite a source when stating every simple fact, and enough artists have sited Led Zeppelin as an influence that it may be considered as a simple fact that their music remains hugely influential. And man, they suck. --TheMadBaron 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. However, generally, it is better there are citations and quotes for a Wikipedia article. It makes it a more balanced argument. It means that the fact is backed up with evidence. Which is good, I think. --FrasierC 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - it's just that the current "citation" isn't really evidence of anything other than the opinion of one BBC hack. If it could be demonstrated that a number of other popular (and, preferably, influential) artists have named Led Zep as an influence, which is undoubtedly the case, then that would have some value. A seperate section on Zeps influence might be in order, or it could be incorporated into the Covers and Tributes section. The opening paragraph need only note that Led Zeppelin are one of the most successful and influential groups in the history of popular music. The term 'rock era' doesn't really mean anything. --TheMadBaron 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just googled "influences Led Zeppelin", and got a number of hits that might make for better citations. Britannica online states that the band "came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal", and musicmatch.com lists these artists as "followers":

AC/DC, The Academy Is..., Aerosmith, Alias, Alice in Chains, Alien Canopy, Trey Anastasio, Angels, Antigone Rising, Anubis Spire, El Arranque, Babylon A.D., Bad Company, Beastie Boys, Bedlam, Betty Blowtorch, The Black Crowes, Black Oak Arkansas, Black Stone Cherry, Blind Melon, Blue Öyster Cult, Blueprint Car Crash, Marc Bolan, Bon Jovi, Los Bondadosos, Bonham, Jon Bon Jovi, Boston, Michelle Branch, Norine Braun, The Buck Pets, Jeff Buckley, Jerry Cantrell, Eric Carr, Cheap Trick, The Cherry Valence, Richard Christy, Chyld, Clutch, Chris Cornell, David Coverdale, Crazy Daisy Band, The Cult, Dark Angel, Darkness, The Datsuns, Dead Meadow, Death Angel, Deep Purple, Def Leppard, Jan Carlo DeFan, Diamond Head, Died Pretty, Dio, Dispatch, Dread Zeppelin, Dream Theater, Dropbox, Billy Duffy, East West, El Pus, Electric Eel Shock, Elefantes, J. englishman, Extra Virgin, Extreme, Faster Pussycat, Fates Warning, The Fire Theft, Five Horse Johnson, Flotsam & Jetsam, Foghat, Lita Ford, Foreigner, 4 Non Blondes, Ace Frehley, From Autumn to Ashes, Galapagos, Ghost, Giuffria, Godsmack, Golden Earring, The Golden Gods, Gooding, Lou Gramm, Great White, Green River, Guns N' Roses, Sammy Hagar, Halfway to Gone, The Handful, Hanoi Rocks, Hawthorne Heights, The Headstones, Heart, James Hetfield, House of Lords, Huevo Duro, Impala, Iron Maiden, It Bites, Jane's Addiction, Joan Jett, Journey, Juanes, Judas Priest, Juicy Lucy, Jumbo's Killcrane, The K.G.B., Kick Axe, King's X, Kingdom Come, Kiss, Kix, Richie Kotzen, Lenny Kravitz, Bruce Kulick, Leaf Hound, B.D. Lenz, The Letters Organize, Leusemia, Aaron Lewis, Living Colour, Llama, Loudness, LOURDS, Loverboy, Andre Luiz, Phil Lynott, Yngwie Malmsteen, Mama Zeus, Manal, Mandrácula, Maria Fatal, Jim Martin, J Mascis, Masters of Reality, Brian May, Meat Puppets, Melon Diesel, Men, Women & Children, Freddie Mercury, Metallica, Minus, The Mission UK, Mississippi Cactus, Moneda Dura, Michael Monroe, Montrose, Ronnie Montrose, Mother Love Bone, Mötley Crüe, The Muggs, Nazareth, Neglected Orphans, Rick Nielsen, Nirvana, Nuclear Assault, The Opus, Ossiris, Overmars, The Painkillers, Pearl Jam, Joe Perry, Plug Spark Sanjay, Poison, The Power Station, Primus, Prince, Queen, Queens of the Stone Age, Queensrÿche, Quiet Riot, Radio Active Cats, Rainbow, Ratt, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Reef, R.E.M., The Rewinds, Janet Robin, Henry Rollins, David Lee Roth, Rush, Richie Sambora, Samhain, Satchel, Michael Schenker, Scorpions, Seahorses, Secret Machines, Gene Simmons, Sir Lord Baltimore, Skank, Slash, Slash's Snakepit, Brad Smith, Soundgarden, Southern Death Cult, Spinal Tap, Sponge, Spooky Tooth, Billy Squier, Paul Stanley, Stinking Lizaveta, Stone Temple Pilots, Styx, Subway to Sally, Sutra, T. Rex, Tahures Zurdos, Talk Show, Roger Taylor, Tesla, Thin Lizzy, Thornley, Tool, Tora Tora, Trapeze, Trouble, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, UFO, Unified Theory, Uriah Heep, Steve Vai, Van Halen, Vandenberg, Versus, Vinnie Vincent, Wallop, W.A.S.P., Ween, Westworld, Whitesnake, Wild Horses, Wolfgang, Wolfmother, Zakk Wylde, Xendra, Young Heart Attack, Zebra, Zipper, Ziroq, Zoo Story

Influential? Hell, yeah. Two of the above listed don't even completely suck. --TheMadBaron 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This list missed out several important musical groups, including Cliff Richard and the Shadows, the Zarnecki Brothers and Voodoo Love. Also Bratz, Emerga and Tefelump, Caravan, Chic, Desiree, Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Donovan, The Elephants (staggering band!), Potempkin, The Lizards, Zardoz, The Hugeonots, Beliaza, Freegal, The Mouse, Steve Hackett, Bezezus and Tanaflour. Also The Nerve and Plastic. I think that includes everyone now who was ever influenced. Jimmy Page is currently appearing at the Dread Theatre Royal, Clifton in "America the Beautiful", a play by Charlton Heston, which entirely features people being shot. Peter Green is appearing as a bridge support outside Telford. Robert Plant died his hair in 1981. That isn't his hair in The Song Remains of course, it's an extra. And they so did eat sharks! And bed linen! MarkThomas 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Thomas aims to mislead. I happen to know that Zardoz is a Sean Connery movie, and Mouse is a sort of fish. TheMadBaron 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps those citations would be better then--FrasierC 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

Although I think Spinal Tap is rather a pointless influence. :D

I guess so, since that band is obviously a joke, making a mockery of the genre, and nobody in their right mind would take them seriously. Pearl Jam are out, too, then.... --TheMadBaron 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is another with the most influencial artist sydrome. Who isn't influencial on Wikipedia? --FrasierC 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given your question lengthy consideration, and I think it's probably me.... --TheMadBaron 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree that Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential bands in history. When it comes to heavy metal. The most influential group would have to be Black Sabbath. Black Sabbath has influenced artists such as Soundgarden and Metallica. Arguments could be made to support Judas Priest as the #1 metal band of all-time. Guns N' Roses has its own place in history with the best-selling debut album of all-time with 15 millions copies sold for Appetite For Destruction. Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Guns N' Roses or Metallica would get my vote for the #1 metal band of all-time. AC/DC deserves consideration.

>> Black Sabbath? More influential than Led Zeppelin??? Is that you Ozzy??? Seriously...you have *got* to be kidding. Nobody is that stupid!

AC/DC's Highway to Hell gets my vote for the #1 metal song of all-time. #1 rock group of all-time- that would be the Rolling Stones.

Just because you don't think they're very good doesn't make them not influencial. --FrasierC 23:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not much needed to be said on this...there is not doubt that Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential bands, if not the most, of all time.

Indeed they are. Oh, Led Zeppelin outsold the Stones 5to1 during the 70s. But even then you cannot take away the merits of the Stones during their so called Lean Spell. The early 70s was the time of LZ. Their early albums laid down the earliest innovations of Hard Rock, and their deviations into folk, Celtic, middle eastern etc. expanded their work to give it variations. This allowed them to avoid monotony of simply hard rock, but at their core they were a blues-rock and hard-rock band. Similar innovations were undertaken by The Beatles, The Clash, Bob Dylan and indeed the Rolling Stones, particularly during their peak. That is where all bands create their legacy: their peaks. Dabanhfreak 12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

this discussion is a bit silly,i know someone above me said that black sabbath were probably the most influental,guess what,Ozzy Osbourne has listed Led Zeppelin's debut album as one of his favourites,thereby influencing one of the most influental bands of all time.David Coverdale (Deep Purple and Whitesnake) has said that "Communication Breakdown" is his favourite song.

the list could go on and on,just about every album they made (except 2 or 3 albums i think, Led Zeppelin(debut album), The Song Remains The Same (live) and Coda, wich was released 2 years after the group disbanded.) went to the top of the charts in BOTH the UK and US,and Stairway To Heaven is probably the most played rock song on US radio,with a total playtime of over 50 years in an existence of 36 years. it is indeed very hard to deny that Led Zeppelin was/is hugely popular and hugely influencal,there is an incredibly large amount of Led Zeppelin tributes out there,even going as far as parodies (Dread Zeppelin),they even knocked the beatles of the top spot with Led Zeppelin II,i think the fact that they are hugely influencal is undeniable Lord revan 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people here have gone away from the original question and/or put in opinions. The answer is quite clear. There was a poll in Guitar World not long ago of the 100 best albums. Led Zep IV got number one and i forget what place there other albums got. So obviously they are one of the most if not the most influential bands of the 20 century. Now sombody under me is probablly going to put down an opionion or something that has nothing to do with the question. If you do have actual facts against my statement then post it.\

Well, I must agree that they are one of the most influental bands in rock history, but who do they influence today? I live in Serbia, and 99% of Serbian population listens either to turbo-folk or rap music. "Stairway to Heaven" IS a legendary song. But, "Mistreated" or "Voodoo Chile" are also legendary songs. So, top 3 bands for me are:

1. 1: Deep Purple
2. 2: The Jimi Hendrix Experience
3. 3: Led Zeppelin

Today there is nothing comparable to there 3 bands. Maddona? Pure rubbish. Britney Spears? Even worse. 50 Cent? That made me fall of my chair. Evanescence? Nothing at all. Not that there weren't other great artists like Chuck Berry, Queen, Rolling Stones, Metallica, Eric Clapton, AC/DC, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, U2 and so on, but nobody listens to them now. Nobody listens to neither reggae or jazz, for example. Yes, they ARE influental, and I really don't understand what MarkThomas is talking about.

Maybe this will make people that claims they werent influental shut up (watch the whole thing) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYscoIx69A

Reverted anon edit a bit ago...

(then had to sign off - sorry!)

Hi all - I'm belatedly explaining my recent revert on the article. I reverted an edit by an IP that changed the rather controversial statement being discussed here at length and also deleted the links to Led Zeppelin in other language Wikis. I reverted the edit because for two reasons:

1. the discussion on this talk page about that statement is not complete, so it should not be changed yet and
2. it removed the links to Zeppelin in other language Wikipedias.

I'd like to clear the air and let everyone know that I have no opinion on the statement, despite what some may think. I don't know too much about Zeppelin, so I'm abstaining from the discussion. Additionally, I'd like to remind the IP user that links to other language Wikipedias should not be removed from an article and that care should be taken in edit summaries (WP:CIVIL). This goes for Mark as well. Srose (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why is that user 71.76.219.92 can say something like this above: "I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit. 71.76.219.92 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)" and not be banned for a while. And yet when I make perfectly reasonable and reasoned edits to this page, pointing out something which has been agreed, that the opening statement was basically nonsense, I get threatened on my page with banning? I feel that something is strange somewhere in the management of WP. Could it be that we are dealing here with the phenomenon of mindless fandom? Certainly when you look across Wikipedia generally there are numerous examples of absurdly sentimental and grovelling fan pages, better off as independent sites, which would never have been allowed in a printed "former" encyclopedia. MarkThomas 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, Mark. You made reasoned arguments, that's true. That part was fine. What wasn't was the strop you got in when you were trying to wind people up. That's hardly innocent behaviour, is it? That was trying to provoke a reaction from people. --FrasierC 13:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Band Name Origin

John Entwistle's phrase was specifically about a "lead zeppelin". Not a "lead balloon". If all he and Keith had suggested was a "lead ballon" then they wouldn't get credit for coming up with the name. John Entwistle even came up with an album cover design that inspired the cover art of Led Zeppelin's first album. 24.49.83.40 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The naming of the band is still a legend and we will never know who said exactly what. In the rock and roll community both are accepted but there are more versions of the legend. --Midnight Rider 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hindenburg (airship)article contradicts this article in describing the origin of the band's name. That article says Keith Moon originally said that the band (presumably Jimmy Page's newly formed band) would would "sink like a lead balloon".

Which article is correct? Enduser 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He said lead Zeppelin. --FrasierC 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? I was under the impression that nobody really remembers exactly what was said. --TheMadBaron 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Hammer of the Gods" and other sources say that is the case, but it could not be. One would presume he did say Lead Zeppelin, otherwise there would be no way you could attibute the name to Keith Moon. --FrasierC 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He might merely have inspired the name with his comment. Page might have just thought that Zeppellin sounded better than balloon. He'd be right. I'm inclined to think that Moon probably said "balloon", partly because that's the version of the story I first heard, maybe thirty years ago, but also because I can't see why anybody would ever have claimed that he said "balloon" if he didn't. But let's face it - as inconvenient as it might be, we just don't really know, and probably never will. --TheMadBaron 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Hammer of the Gods" actually states that John Entwistle was the person who made the "lead balloon" comment, although I've also seen it attributed to Moon. InTheFlesh? 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. I think Moon heard the phrase from Entwistle, and then used it in relation to who were then the New Yardbirds. --FrasierC 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

After the Yardbirds broke up, Jimmy Page set forth on a mission to create a brand new band called the New Yardbirds. After he found Robert, Bonzo, and Jonesy, they stuck with the name until the drummer of The Who (who's name escapes me at the moment) told them they were going to to sink like a Led Zeppelin. Well, they didn't. But, they thought the name was pretty cool so they kept it. Hence, Led Zeppelin. ((User- zackattack141))

I read the lead balloon comment in a number of places. However, I assume if it was something like "sink like a lead zeppelin" it would have been sensible to write "led" so that it distinguishes the pronunciation from "lead" (as in leash). Candy 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"No name - especially a band name - comes out of a vacuum, and the one quickly agreed upon, Led Zeppelin, is not exception. There is a long tradition of anecdote that ascribes the name to two members of The Who, John Entwistle and Keith Moon. As we've seen, back in 1966 The Who's rhythm team grew tired of the stresses and strains inside their band and seriously contemplated leaving to form a new supergroup with Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page. In 1968-69, supergroups were a new and very fashionable phenomenon in rock, and though this earlier prototype never got off the ground, in conversation one night Entwistle an Moon had joked that such a line-up would have gone down like a lead balloon ... - an old English expression for something that is a complete disaster. Elaborating on the joke, the image became altered to a lead zeppelin - an even more spectacularly amusing image of self-immolation. Page liked not only the idea but also the image conjured - the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace. Filed away for future reference, two years later he decided it fit his needs.

This could be the real origin of the name, but there are, of course, alternatives. A friend of Page's from the mid 1960s has related that during 1968 Page, like many stars of the day, often sported badges, trinkets, and other accessories on his clothes. One of these was a small replica zeppelin made of - you guessed it - lead. Perhaps contemplating the clever heavy-and-light contradictions contained in Iron Butterfly's name, Page found what he was looking for pinned to his own shirt. Perhaps it was a combination of circumstances - a timely coincidence." - From Led Zeppelin The Story of a Band and Their Music 1968-1980, by Keith Shadwick Copyright 2005.

Clearly there is some confusion over the origin of the name, so I think an exact statement would be inappropriate.Mister B. 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I am going to make an edit to the article to reflect the confusion over the naming. Mister B. 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has re-modified the article since yesterday... does anyone know why this was partially reverted? It seems that none of this discussion was taken into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&diff=107328412&oldid=107272213 Mister B. 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert this. If Erle Grey wishes to argue the changes he made, then please do so in here, and subsequent changes can be made. Mister B. 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

"Presence was a platinum seller, but the album received mixed responses from critics and fans; while some appreciated the looser style, others dismissed it as sloppy, and some critics speculated that the band member's legendary excesses might have caught up with them at last. The time "Presence" was recorded marked the beginning of Page's injecting heroin, which may have interfered with Led Zeppelin's later live shows and studio recordings, although Page has denied this."

How about citations on some of these things, including the reviews?

Like this from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/224305/review/5945483/presence

That's just an example obviously. --FrasierC 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Do it. --TheMadBaron 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the initial quotation,
but does refer to a slight problem with a citation in the article.
The wiki link at the bottom of the page to the Stephen Davis novel,
"Hammer of the Gods" does not, in fact, link to an article about this book.
It links to an article about a roll playing game.
There does not appear to be an article about Davis' book,
though the link to Davis himself is valid.
Until now I have had no involvement in the development of this page
Perhaps someone more closely affiliated with the work would prefer to
do the proverbial honors.

- Rockthing 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Samples, covers, and tributes

I can't help thinking that the list of cover versions should be reduced or summarised. That so many covers exist is certainly worth noting, but the list can never include all commercially released covers (there are more than 100 versions of "Stairway to Heaven" alone), and the selection seems to be somewhat arbitrary. --TheMadBaron 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could break it off into another article on Zeppelin trivia or something like that. InTheFlesh? 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumours....

IMO, the article is a little too "dry" for it's subject....

"If the band's popularity on stage and record was impressive, so too was its reputation for excess and off-stage wildness. Led Zeppelin traveled in a private jet (nicknamed The Starship), rented out entire sections of hotels (most notably the Continental Hyatt House in Los Angeles), and became the subject of many of rock's most famous stories of debauchery. Tales of trashed hotel rooms and groupies have become more extraordinary with each passing year. Several people associated with the band, such as tour manager Richard Cole, would later write books about the wild escapades of the group."

I think this could be expanded. For example, somrthing about the legend concerning Led Zeppelin pleasuring a groupie with a mud shark [3] would liven the article up a bit.

"Malicious critics and superstitious fans imputed the bands' misfortunes to a "curse", said to be related to Page's supposed interest in the occult."

This is another part of the Led Zep legend which could be expanded. Worthy additions might include the dubious allegations concerning Pages actions at the time of Bonhams death ("he stood over him wearing Satanist robes and performing a useless spell" [4]) and the alleged backwards messages in "Stairway to Heaven". --TheMadBaron 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. However, generally Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumours, but I suppose it would be relevant to add something about the occult. However, I think the backwards message should be kept on the Stairway to Heaven page. --FrasierC 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We deal in facts, hopefully, but it is a fact that rumours exist.... in Led Zeppelin's case, an awful lot of very strange and silly rumours exist, and it seems a bit remiss not to cover them better, when sources can be cited. It seems to me as if we have a very long and detailed article which, nonetheless, really only says that the band had a very successful career, when actually they're so much more interesting than that.

I agree that the backwards message nonsense is best dealt with in detail on the Stairway to Heaven and Backmasking pages, but it's such enduring nonsense that a sentence on the subject, and a nod in that direction would seem to be in order. I'd have a go at it, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, how to approach it, or if it would go over like the proverbial lead balloon.... --TheMadBaron 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Project?

Is there a Led Zeppelin wikiproject? If not, would someone like to help me organize one? Billvoltage 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blood transfusion

"Robert suffered a broken ankle and Maureen was very badly injured; a flight back to London and a timely blood transfusion saving her life."

This is odd. The implication is that facilities for blood transfusion didn't exist in Greece in 1975, which seems scarcely credible. If the flight came before the transfusion, then, far from saving her life, it might have killed her. I would speculate that it was the transfusion alone which saved her life, and was then followed by the flight, which didn't. Does anybody have a reliable account of the events surrounding the accident? TheMadBaron 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In Hammer of the Gods, it says that there was no blood of her type on the island of Rhodes. (It wasn't Greece it was Rhodes, which, being an island off of Greece, is more likely not to have had the relevant blood). Her sister could not give her all the blood she needed either. As well as this, if I remember rightly, the Greek autorities were accusing her of being drunk while driving, not that that has much to do with the blood transfusion.

--FrasierC 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "The Battle of Evermore" is the only Led Zeppelin song to feature a guest vocalist, the late Sandy Denny. [16] Led Zeppelin II, the song 'Thank You' features a guest vocalist? Source disagrees, might be wrong though Just checking :)

Got rid of the whole criticism article

Seriously people, just because one band said a bad thing about the band does not mean we have to start a whole article about it people, I mean people say bad things about Elvis, that does not mean we have to start a whole criticism article ABOUT Elvis. I mean people said bad things about The Beatles, that does not mean we have to start a whole criticism article about The Beatles, okay? -TheBird71.236.225.50 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is it bullshit but it is POV and reeks of an agenda. Either rewrite it substantially to remove the antagonistic tone or get rid of it completely. Samgb 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Or just do what I ended up doing and remove the POV bits. The rest is fair comment i suppose. I left the Van Halen picture alone as an example of a band influenced by Zep even though I think we could probably come up with a better example. The section could probably be expanded on somewhat but i can settle for just removing the bad bits for now. Samgb 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the prick who just put all that nonsense about Skid Row and Hair Metal back in and didnt even have the courtesy to come on and defend the decision? Nice manners. I smell a revert war!Samgb 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again the section listing any and all hair metal band the user can think of and 'emo' has been put back in. Can the person who is doing it please do me the common courtesy of explaining its presence? Its not relevant it is an opinion. Samgb 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Legacy and Criticism

I see the legacy but I don't see any criticism... --FK65 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Icarus or Apollo?

This page says the winged dude for Swan Song Records is Icarus, but is mistaken for apollo (etc) BUT swan songs page says that it is apollo and is mistaken for icarus (etc) so which is it? Apollo, or icarus?

It is Apollo, the logo is clearly based off of William Rimmer's painting Evening: Fall of Day, and in addition to numerous sources on the internet saying it's Apollo in the painting, the name of the painting is Evening: Fall of Day, portraying the SUN God falling. So it's Apollo.

Led Zeppelin#Houses of the Holy - It also contradicts the William Rimmer article. -th1rt3en 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd, since Apollo is typically depicted as clothed, wingless, and driving a chariot (the sun was the chariot's wheel). Which 'sources on the internet' say it's Apollo? Are these sources from the art world, or are they Zeppelin pages? Are there any other examples in ancient or modern art of a winged Apollo? MFNickster 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess the question has never been officially answered, on this about.com Q&A (http://experts.about.com/q/Led-Zeppelin-501/Icarus-Apollo.htm) it says in another Q&A Plant said it was Icarus, but it states the painting the logo is clearly taken from is Apollo, and leaves it as ambiguous saying that Plant has never been good with Zep info.

Good thing that the man who makes 1/4 of "Zep info" has never been very good with it... Anyways, I guess, and think, that it should be removed until we can find a source. I suppose add it to the list of things to do, anyone agree?Billvoltage 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List both sources, and both explanations. WesleyDodds 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FIRST U.S. CONCERT

Where was LZ's first US concert. I was at the one in Denver in Dec 1968 (I believe the date is correct) and I thought it was their first in the US. Now I here that there was one in CA before that. In Denver they opened for Vanilla Fudge if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for any clarifying info.

I just quickly checked three sources all of which note 26 December

as the first date in the US in Denver Colorado.

The question is, which to cite. :-)

Godwin's Illustrated Collector's Guide, Shinko Music's Archive Series vol.7 on Led Zeppelin

or the somewhat controversial Richard Cole book? I'm sure there are more.

- Rockthing 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why compare to Liberace?

I found it strange to compare Led Zeppelin's colorful clothing to Liberace's. I can't think of two more different artists, with different audiences from different generations. Rock bands had been wearing colorful, outrageous clothing since the 60's. Furthermore, I think Liberace started wearing his signature extravagant costumes in the 50's. Therefore, I don't think there is any relation between their clothing choices.

TrampledUF 04:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Influence on other bands

I'd like to add my humble oppinion on the discussion of led zeppelin's influence if i may. I read the discussion and was puzzled to hear poeple questioning the popularity and influence of the band. One comment made was that someone could'nt even see the influence that the band had in the 80's. I would combat this statement with the fact that guns'n'roses, as much as i despise them, identify Led Zeppelin as one of their major influences. As Guns'n'Roses were one of the biggest acts in the late 80's it is made quite evident of there influence. Another to bands that started in earlier era's that peeked in the 80's, Queen and Aerosmith, also identify Led as a major forerunner of their own work. Roger Taylor was recently Quoted at an awards evening saying "we nicked loads of our stuff from them" a blatant admitance of influence in Queen's work.

Another element of their influence that people havn't considered is jimmy Page's influence and inventiveness as a producer. Once you start to look deeply into the way he produced Led albums you uncover that he's techniques were revolutionary. Every thing down to the way he micked the drum kit was new and bordering on genius. This production method produced a perfectionist's final product resulting in a nrilliant new sound in hard rock for others to follow. This kind of production has even influenced the likes of Radiohead's johnny Greenwood, Greenwood has adopted the role of Lead guitarist/producer that Page practicly invented.

As for the claim that they are no longer an influence in modern music or even popular i say this dear sirs. They are one of the only bands to exceed 250 million album sales , and as they only sold around half of these during their time as a band this proves that they have an ongoing and extensive fan base. Modern artists such as wolfmother, muse and White stripes take huge influence from them. So maybe they bear no relivence to your average music fan of today, but this is a time when the tedious likes of johny borrel and the feeling (with their koo koo koo crazy's)top the charts. Led Zeppelin created sophisticated, inovative and difficult music. In a time when the bar chord is the only chord bands know the existance of maybe Led Zeppelin aren't that influential, but to me thats a comment on modern day music. At the end of the day the artists that push the boundaries of modern music never deny the influence of Led Zeppelin. So therefore the fact that not many bands sound like Led is because they just can't pull it off. If you look a little deeper yousee that the band had a profound affect on the music industry. Thanks.........

Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential rock bands ever; I find it odd that people would say that their influence wasn't present in the 80s. On the contrary, for decades they were the most influential heavy metal band (a placethat Black Sabbath has since usurped). Aerosmith, Van Halen, Whitesnake, Kingdom Come, Jane's Addiction, Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Stone Temple Pilots are just bands off the top of my head that were influenced by Zeppelin. WesleyDodds 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Houses Of The Holy

I believe the following sentence is slightly incorrect.

"The striking orange album cover of "Houses of the Holy" features images of nude children (girls) climbing "

According to
Manning, Toby. "Broad Church", Q Led Zeppelin Special Edition, 2003.

The models for the cover were Stephan and Samantha Gates. So they are not both girls. Inaccurate information from Manning is not entirely out of the question, however.

I considered removing only the '(girls)' from this section of the article.

But I believe it may be better to change the text to read, "male and female children" with a citation of the above article.

- Rockthing 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can do it, do it. I would, but I don't have the proper references... Remember be bold Billvoltage 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:-) I did it. Still trying not to ruffle too many feathers as I've no history of contributing to pages that many have put a lot of time and effort into. Thanks for the reminder/encouragement - Rockthing 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi - I was hoping fans of LZ could create a list of books about the band. I'd like to read more, and know some of the best and notable histories in publication. Thanks. --Stbalbach 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A "Satanistic" band??

Why is Led Zeppelin described as a "satanistic" band?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.81.25.154 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There are several reasons, all of them somewhat tongue-in-cheek. First the band participated with great humor in the great 'hidden backward recording' episodes, which some evangelists have cited as proof of the satanism of rock or pop music. Second, Founder Jimmy Page was for years obsessed with the legend of Aleister Crowley, remembered himself as 'the Beast'. Crowley likely had the same sense of humor that Zeppelin enjoyed, but was a devotee of freedom and excesses in his own life, one which rock music fame allowed Zeppelin to duplicate. Page later bought his castle and a large collection of Crowley's effects. The symbols used on Led Zeppelin IV are part of a Celtic and Crowley-inspired backdrop and imagery the band often used, and references are plentiful in Zeppelin lyric work. Some have argued that the band's use of such things cast a poor spell on them. So the satan thing continually had a way of recycling itself in the band's work and events. As they say, bad publicity is still publicity nonetheless. [end comment from other user]

Even so, I don't the band should be labelled as satanic, for a few reasons. First, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have both denied repeatedly that they were not practicing in the occult, and also that the lyrics do not have any satanic meaning. Second, and more importantly, there is almost no proof that they WERE satanic, even if they were hiding it, other than fans getting worked up over Stairway being played backwards. So, I feel that the discussion of their curiosity over the occult should be left to that section of the article, and certainly left out of the first line. It will give people the wrong impression, because the band is NOT focussed in any way on the Satanic. AC 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont care what anyone says, i've listened to stairway to heaven played backwards literally dozens of times and there are NO backwards lyrics. Also, Robert plant wrote most of the songs, not page. But most important of all, Crowley was NOT a satanist. he practiced magic but not satanic magic. Captanpluto123 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)== Greatest Guitar Album ==

I'm not an experienced editor of Wikipedia, and thus do not know who to add citation links, but I do have a link to a site that gives Guitar World's list of the 100 greatest guitar albums of all time, which IV tops. The link is [5] I also have the actual issue right in front of me. It's the October 2006 issue.

A Bunch of helpfull info

I found the entire story to the naming of Led Zeppelin. It's in an interview in a book, "Bass Heroes" Edited by Tom Mulhern. In an interview with John Entwistle he states (about leaving the band, "I was going to leave the Who every other week! At one point, Keith and I were going to form our own band with Jimmy Page, Keith said, 'It'll probably sink like a lead balloon,' so I said, 'Why don't we call it Led (note, we know that it's supposed to be "Lead" but the reporter wrote it as knew) Zeppelin and Keith agreed. We even planned an album with a picture of the Hindenberg going down in flames and the bands name in red letters at the top." Summarized, Richard Cole, the drive for the two, lost his license for speeding. So John and Keith had to fire him. He then went to work as a production manager for Jimmy Page. I don't know how to word this, and i don't want to ruin this articles chance to be a featured article again, so I will leave this information here, along with it's bibliography:

Bass Heroes. Jisi, Chris. Comp. Tom Mulhern. San Francisco, CA: GPI Books, 1993. 91-92. -- C33 Four

have a look at this and tell me what you think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coda_%28album%29#Compilation.3F Please leave some comments on your opinions. Lord revan 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

i have heard that theory, but i have also heard the remark was originally was from Keith Moon, and John Entwistle took credit because he was jealous that their dream band didn't happen. Ledzepluvr 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More Photos Please

I think I speak for many when I say this article is badly in need of more photos with good captions--especially concert photos. This would aid in breaking up the large swathes of text, so it would be great if some good image contributers could help out with this. Two photos is a ridiculously small amount for an article of this size. Thanks. 71.76.219.92 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would like to go to <led-zeppelin.com>, they have many many MANY! pics of the band hanging out, rehearsing, promo shots, concert clips, and individual member photos. They are under "photo gallery"(or a similar name...tons there) and "photo of the month"(on which you can go back years and look at the pictures. By the way, they'll all captioned, so you know what it is that you're looking at. :P Ledzepluvr 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LETS PUT THESE GODS INTO A FEATURED ARTICLE

I MEAN C'MON NOW, MARIAH CAREY? THAT'S LAUGHABLE, AND NOT LED ZEPPELIN? YOU PEOPLE FAIL HORRIBLY Zabrak 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Starcaster 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)I concur.

I think it's a great idea that such an influential artist be promoted to feature article status. As for "you people fail horribly" - that includes you! Wikipedia is for and by everyone. Take the initiative to improve the article yourself. - Slow Graffiti 03:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be pretty cool for this to become a featured article, too, but it's worth pointing out that a subject gets a featured article because the article is good, not because of the quality or importance of the subject. That's why the featured articles cover such a wide range of stuff; otherwise every featured article would be on Leonardo da Vinci or World War II. I haven't read the Mariah Carey article, but if it became a featured article, I assume it was because it's (ahem) well put together. MrBook 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

everyone here is 100% correct...has anything hapenned since this discussion? (Sept 13)

Not that I noticed...Billvoltage 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Evermore

The song 'The Battle of Evermore' is based on 'The Silmarillion', not 'Lord of the Rings'.62.30.162.46 13:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, The Silmarillion wasn't published until 1977. Led Zeppelin IV was released in 1971. Sykil 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought Battle of Evermore was based off of a battle in Scotland?

Lord of the Rings was actually written hundreds of years ago...of course variations of the story exist in many forms. I have heard on many occasions that Led Zepplein (especially Jimmy Page) were big fans of the story and its many subliminal messages... discuss

Yes, Led Zeppelin were huge lord of the rings fans which can be proved by many of there songs including Misty Mountian hop. But, this song was not mainly based on LOTR or The Silmarillian but was mainly about an ancient battle between the Celts and the Britains. Although there are references to LOTR such as "The dark lord rides in force tonight" and "The Ringraiths ride in Black" the song is not about it. {{User Zackattack141)) 10:31 November 7 2006.

• • They were Lords of the Ring fans (as reference to Gollum in "Ramble On" proves, but much of the Lord of the Rings-esque imagery is based on chared Celtic and ?Norse? mythology

This page needs more pics

U know, live perfomances, etc. -Dragong4

I agree - zackattack141

Strange sentence in regards to timeline

This statement:

Almost thirty years after the group decided they were unable to continue after the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980...

Does not make sense. I don't know exactly when they decided to call it quits, but it certainly wasn't 30 years after Bonham died. The smallest number would be on the order of 12 years (68ish to 80).

Bbonet 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Brentholio

(No offense but) you're just reading it wrongly. It's not refering to how many years they lasted; it's refering to how many years after Bonham died. Though, it is pretty wordy. I'll shorten it. Sykil 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it as in "30 years after 1980"?

Well it was ALMOST 30 years ago.

--FrasierC 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

An anonymous contributor is insisting that the entire discography and trivia sections be deleted. Just about every Featured Article that we have on Wikipedia for a band has a discography in the main article, sometimes with an expanded discography in a separate section. It's absolutely vital part of any good article on a band, because... well, it's what they've produced, right? Remember, Wikipedia:The perfect article "is nearly self-contained; i.e., it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."

As for the trivia section, it brings some interesting little bits of additional information into the article. If it's being removed because of concerns about the length of the article, then let's address that massive chunk of text in the History section that comprises much of the article; perhaps pare it down, move a lot of the extraneous detail to a separate article, and make it less imposing for a casual reader. -/- Warren 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This continues to be a problem; this edit by 71.76.212.61 is the latest in a series of attempts to remove information from the article. This user has now been asked three times to discuss their deletions here on the talk page, and they've yet to do so. -/- Warren 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

": If you can't be civil (something you've repeatedly demonstrated problems with in the past) and work within Wikipedia's guidelines, then the encyclopedia will benefit from your lack of participation. Most of your time here has been spent in some pointless debate about who a better guitar player is, and deleting entire sections because, in your estimation, it's a "waste of space". This kind of behaviour doesn't result in a better encyclopedia. -/- Warren 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)"

Actually, you are the only user who has ever harassed me. In the years I have spent on this site, I have made countless contributions to various articles on novels, movies, and persons. To say that all I've done is engage in one pointless debate is ridiculous and completely unfounded. If I want to engage in a fun discussion with a fellow user I will do so, and that is that. That you would waste the time to read such a "pointless" discussion destroys your own argument. I will not be returning here so feel free to be a juvenile and say "good riddance" and all of that. 71.76.216.220 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in Controversy section

I just had a quick look through your article, and it seems to me that the listing of "Moby Dick" as a uncredited cover of the Estes song is not correct. Moby Dick is a long drum solo with an instrumental intro. and ending. The Zeppelin song off the BBC sessions "The Girl I Love She Got Long Black Wavy Hair" IS a cover of the Estes song and is credited as such. Moby Dick uses a similar guitar riff, but has no lyrics. Moby Dick actually came out of a concert drum solo by Bonham called "Pat's Delight". 147.155.2.164 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After some more research, it seems this whole "controversy" section was lifted from an album review site. They don't cite any source that says "Moby Dick" was lifted. It seems that this claim was made because "Moby Dick" is similar to "The Girl I Love She Got..." from the BBC sessions. The instrumental riffs are very similar between the two songs, but the riff is a Page invention. The original Estes song was basic blues guitar. I have removed "Moby Dick" from the controversy section because it does not take any material from the Estes song. 147.155.2.164 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Im considering editing the whole thing. It is a contentious issue with Zep especially in the case of blues/folk tunes. As many of these are traditional anyway( and nearly all have totally different arrangements, guitar parts, etc )just how controversial are the credits? A good example of this is "In My Time Of Dying." Yes, the lyrics are a lift from Blind Willie Johnson's "Jesus Gonna Make Up My Dying Bed" but the music is completely different. There is a school of thought suggesting that the likes of Willie Dixon were merely collecting and copyrighting traditional blues tunes rather than writing them, in much the same way A.P Carter did with country music and it is important to bear that in mind here. Im not saying that kind of curating isnt valuable it just seems a little disengenous to then criticise Zep for lifting a lyric or 10! Samgb 10:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This Controversy section is copied from here:

http://www.warr.org/zep.html

It is also completely wrong. I have changed it so it is more accurate, but have not cited any of these. I believe I am correct in all that I put, but still, I vote for a deletion, instead putting a short section on Led Zeppelin's court cases that were because of the accusations against them.--FrasierC 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Delete it please. Copies from smirking, cynical, bullshit-ridden, smart-arse website not required in encyclopedia thanks very much.Samgb 09:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I find it disappointing that there's not at this time any reference I can see in the article to Zep's appropriation of songs that they did not write. Something along the lines of "Like many of their contemporaries, such as The Rolling Stones and Cream, Led Zeppelin drew heavily from old folk and blues standards for their repertoire, but unlike those artists', Page and Plant regularly took credit for songs that were demonstrably derived from previously published works." I'm a fan of the band and I'd never suggest that they didn't add much to the songs they appropriated, but I can still call a spade a spade and recognize that the fact that they plastered their own names on the songs was pretty scummy, without even getting into the numerous lawsuits to back that up. There's a great, well-referenced article at Perfect Sound Forever that could certainly serve as a reputable source on this stuff. It's not POV to include this kind of thing and I'm not suggesting some huge entry cataloguing every borrowed riff and lawsuit. I just think there should be some acknowledgement, 'cause the issue isn't going to disappear. Anazgnos 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even as another fan, I concur. This is a key part to Zeppelin history. I'm surprised the blues artists made such little of it... I don't even care about them not paying these guys but not to acknowledge them as the writers of songs that went on to be so popular?--Zoso Jade 15:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase

I don't know much about Led Zeppelin, but in my opinion, the following sentences (appearing in the first section of the article) need to be rephrased:

"Page had joined the Yardbirds in 1966 playing bass guitar while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument, then switching to lead guitar."

The last part is misleading: Who switched to lead guitar? Was it Dreja or Page? Usually one refers to the last mentioned person, which is Dreja. However, it would be strange if Dreja switched to lead guitar, because, then, why was he getting comfortable with "that instrument", which is bass guitar?

So please, make clear who switched to lead guitar. To make this clear, maybe we need EM dashes around "while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument"? Or something else. Just rephrase it please, to make it clear.

I agree, it's clumsy writing. I've added parentheses - further clarification might become long winded, so if this still doesn't work, I'd recommend cutting it to say only that Page joined the Yardbirds in 1968, and played lead guitar.

"Led Zeppelin was formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page. Page had joined the Yardbirds in 1966, first playing bass guitar (while rhythm guitarist Chris Dreja became comfortable with that instrument), then switching to lead guitar."

Better? TheMadBaron 22:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Country???

"On the description of Zep's sound, the genre "country" is included. I think whoever put that needs to give an example on here or there of a country song by Zep. Otherwise, it needs to go. I don't think I've ever heard Plant singing country..."

In my time of dying and Gallows Pole. It definately isn't conventional country but the connection is definately there. Country and folk are interchangable phrases in many cases.

I am the person who put country there. I did a research project on rock and roll and have thurough knowledge of the subject on many levels. In my time of dying and Gallows Pole are examples, but what about Tangerine and Bron-Y-Aur Stomp amongst many others?? Let me know if you need more examples, but for now I have changed it back to say country and maybe it needs more debate...

Just listened to some Zeppelin not too long ago, and was surprised to hear the song "Hot Dog." There's definite country influence there. Perhaps it was meant to be more humorous and a bit derisive, but nonetheless, it was definitely a country/rock song. So I now agree that Zep did have some country influence, albeit small.

How was it "small"? Just because they didn't record whole albums of country songs? Just because a band isn't playing that genre on an album per album basis dose not mean that style of music only played a small role in their influence. Just take a well known country singer (Kenny Rogers for example) he was heavily influenced by Jazz, but you wouldn't be able to tell it by listening to his Greatest Hits CD! 74.65.39.59 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Errors?

07/23/2006

I read this and am irritated by the use of "were" versus "was". "Were" is typically used with a plural subject, "was" with a singular. They "were", he "was", etc.

Led Zeppelin is a singular, not a plural. It is a singular entity.

Which sounds better?

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band, and are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of all time."

OR

"Led Zeppelin was an English rock band widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of all time."

OR "Led Zeppelin wasn't an English rock band not particularly widely regarded as almost one of the most popular and perhaps slightly influential musicality groups of all tea-times." I think you'll agree this is best.

As for external links, there are a few very good ones related to live Zeppelin recordings (bootlegs) that may be of interest to readers of the article. www.stryder.de, www.royal-orleans.com, and http://uuweb.led-zeppelin.us/. I think these should be added, unless anyone has any objections...

Also, should John Paul Jones personal site should be on the external links, www.johnpauljones.com? I know he has his own page, so I don't know if this article's external links needs to be cluttered up.

Led Zeppelin was is American
Led Zeppelin were is British
Led Zeppelin and is Wubbish

We had the same problem about plural vs singular on the Queen page, and it was agreed, that, because it was a problem with American English vs British English, it should be done with the bands country, in which Led Zeppelin are/were (not is/was) is correct. This is because they are British, and accoring to the usage rules, it should be the country from which the entity orginates. If you would like to view the Queen discussion, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_%28band%29/Archive_2#Singular_or_Plural

I hope this helps to clear things up. Billvoltage 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin, a group. A group, more than one, not singular! Led Zeppelin were the best & one of the most influential groups of all time! 886Zeppelin 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretentious argument. The term 'group' refers to a single collection of many things. In itself, 'group' is singular. The words 'band' or 'family' are no different. 'Groups', plural form, would refer to many groups of things just as 'computers' refers to many single computers. 'A group of computers' refers to the collection of computers and not the individual computers themselves. You cannot say 'groups of computers' if you wish to refer to one single collection. Therefore, "the band are" is incorrect; "the band is" is consistant with simple subject-verb agreement grammar rules. The grammar relevance is simple logic and not deteremined by "UK/US English". --Bentonia School 12:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Really that influential?

From the opening line: "one of the most influential music groups of the 20th century." Led Zep were brilliant but were they really one of the most influential? Actually heavy rock seems to have become quite a backwater, with other trends in popular music now much more prominent - there have been a few LZ samples in hip hop tracks and a few heavy rock groups strive to imitate them, but isn't that about it? Actually Robert Plant's influence has if anything been stronger as a solo artist. I wonder if this line should be modified? MarkThomas 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no it shouldnt:) Obviously you dont like them Mark but that doesnt make it so! The list of bands influenced by zep is-- almost endless: REM's Peter Buck, Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age, Beastie Boys, Aerosmith, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, the White Stripes and recently Corinne Bailey Rae. They all dig them! Anyway, lets have a vote: Wo thinks they are one of the most influential bands of the 20th )century? i say YES. Who is with me? Samg 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samgb, no question, yes. Hard rock as a general catagory, very much a part of the 80s and 90s, owes them a tremndous debt. They are THE hard rock band.

Hi Samgb, and not true that I don't like them - I adore them! But I'm wondering about the objectivity of the statement that's all. I agree they've been influential, but even going on your list - on Nirvana - OK just, but in general grunge owes little to the Zepp. Aerosmith -yes. RHCP - no. White Stripes - obviously yes, but they are an oddity. Corinne Bailey Rae - how on earth do you get there? Actually I just went and looked at the (useful in discussions like this) Musicmatch followers list. It has a long list but they are mostly fairly obscure bands. The best known it gives are Radiohead (tenuous connection) and Supergrass (better). But "one of the most influential" - no. MarkThomas 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that they influenced huge amounts of Metal bands, in that they created the genre. They influenced a generation with Stairway to Heaven as well, in that many picked up a guitar to play that song. And what has popularity got to do with influence? It's completely irrelevant how popular the bands they influenced are, it's how many they influenced. Anyway, they helped delevop the rock scene of the 1970s and influenced many bands in 1980s onwards. There is no criteria for their influence to be popular. --FrasierC 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't what the opening statement implies FrasierC - they "are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of the 20th century" - that to me and I think to any fair-minded and objective reader implies that there is unanimity that they have this stunning status, and I'm just making the point that whilst that may be how it's seen amongst heavy rock fans and older music types, I very much doubt that it this highly sycophantic summary of their God-legend status still holds true amongst the wider public (it probably didn't even in 1980), and this statement does imply mass-influence and popularity. I have posted a suggested rephrasing. See what you think.MarkThomas 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that they do have mass popularity and influence. They have influenced many, many groups. Whether these groups are popular or not is wholly irrelevant. --FrasierC 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

it is common knowledge now that they are overrated but its become such a popular lay assumption little can be done about it now. - ishmaelblues

You have no basis for that assessment, except for your own opinions. --FrasierC 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mark, I think he is confusing "influence" with "imitation" and "popularity". I'll expose my bias here and say I grew up listening to Led Zep and still think they're the greatest rock band ever, by far. That being said, I don't want to hear every new band trying to be carbon copies (imitating them). "Influence" speaks to "inspiration". If somebody listens to Gallows Pole and then writes a song he sees as Hangman, pt II, it may sound nothing like the original (nor even mention it) but he will have been "influenced" by LZ. Influence is not always apparent or obvious (such as "sampling"). True influence is far more nuanced than simple imitation. If I listen to Over the Hills and Far Away and get inspired to write a certain song...that's influence, even if Page's mellow riffs or Plant's screeches are totally lacking from my song. But the others are also correct in saying that there are hundreds of acts that have obviously been influenced by LZ as judged by the numerous covers out there. Last night, for example, Wynona Judd (of all people) did a cover of Rock and Roll on the CMA Music Fest live on CBS...go figure!--WilliamThweatt 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So much confusion here about what we are actually attempting to discuss. Nobody is saying they weren't a great band. The statement I am challenging (and which you altered back WilliamThweatt without the slightest attempt to justify) is as follows:

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band and are widely regarded as one of the most popular and influential music groups of the 20th century.[1]"

"Check out for example NPR's poll of polls on the top music of the 20th Century.... [6] - do you see a Led Zeppelin track there? Now look at the list of best selling albums ever. There is one Led Zep album in a list dominated by Garth Brooks and Barbara Streisand and the like; would you say artists like that have been influenced by Jimmy and Robby? Come off it. This is like a lot of Wikipedia; the page is essentially a cultists hang-out and if you dare to objectify the page, a load of sad people immediately put it back to where they "think it should be" in their tiny-minded way, eg, a mix of love-in and God-worship. Why don't we have a new type of "Holy Shrine to the Zeppelin" Infobox too? And what's truly funny about this is that most of us English have some perspective on the likes of Led Zep, eg, as faded rock dinosaurs with no contemporary relevance, yet the US cult-junkies are still in full blown worship mode. All very sad. MarkThomas 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

You are clearly confusing the area we are discussing. They influenced bands, yes? They are thus an influence. It's wholly irrelevant if those bands weren't popular, although I think Guns N' Roses may have something to say about that. They influenced people end of story. Whether they are an influence now and how popular the bands that they influenced is irrelevant.

And I don't think your personal attack is fair or just. You edit the page because you think it's not right. Then you attack those who dare to disagree with you. That's not fair at all. That's just you being wholly biased and getting personal because others have an opinion that differs to your's.

"that most of us English have some perspective on the likes of Led Zep,"

Who are you to comment on what "us English" think? Guess what, I think the original sentence is fine. I'm English. Maybe I'm outdated, maybe I'm a cultist. Whatever I am, I do not insult someone because my opinion differs to their's, or someone dares question my perceived infinite wisdom.

"Check out for example NPR's poll of polls on the top music of the 20th Century.... "

Well, there's conclusive evidence for Wikipedia. It's a poll, thus is not objective. Still, it proves your point, so it must be right.

You keep confusing influence with influencing popular bands. --FrasierC 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well so much for respect, Mark. I was trying to be WP:CIVIL and assume your good faith. I did justify my revert by including a source for the claim. First of all I recommend that you start by actually reading the sentence in question. The wording isn't indicating the WP is making the blanket factual statement that LZ was the most popular and influential group. On the contrary, it says that it is "widely regarded" as such. And I provided a source (a BBC source, no less -- written by and for "you English") that verifies that statement (that they are "regarded to be the most popular and influential", not that they necessarily are). The page is already "objectified" in the distancing conveyed by the wording. You were seeking to change the meaning (because you, personally don't beleive they are one of the most popular/influential bands--even though that's not even what the sentence says). And, FYI, I am just passing through; I don't "hang out here", today was the first edit I've ever made here, in fact, I've never even read the article past the first three paragraphs.--WilliamThweatt 22:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will express only one opinion here. That all editors should keep their RV war off of the main page and leave it on the discussion page until a concensus is reached. If a concensus can't be reached then you will have to put in a request for mediation. The previous wording has a citation and on Wikipedia cited statements have more power than personal POV. One user is already bordering 3RR as well as being reported to the Administrator noticeboard for being uncivil. Anger22 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly about semantics. Can I make a suggestion? Either tone it down a bit (Led Zep are widely popular and influential...) or reference the cited source explicitly (...described by the BBC as "one of the most influential bands of the rock era"). Few people can deny that they are influential, and nobody can deny that the BBC described them as such, but "one of the most influential" is an opinion that can be disputed, as is happening at the moment. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the most popular is a fact though. So that would have to be removed in that version. It's a good idea though. What do others think? I would say that they are, factually, one of the most influential bands of all time, but if we are to be even more middle of the road then using the second option you suggest is better in my view. --83.100.224.233 23:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In truth, describing anything or anyone as one of the most anything is highly subjective, simply due to how vague the phrase is. It could be interpreted to mean one of the 5 most... or one of the 300,000 most... MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"One of the most influential" would be more accurate if we were to more narrowly define the genres of music to the kinds of music they were known for. They have been very influential in certain genres, absolutely, but also quite irrelevant in many others. Electronica acts like Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream and the work of Brian Eno are also regarded as highly influential -- just not on groups that most Led Zeppelin fans have heard of. :-) Punk, New Wave, Reggae, and Disco are just a few other major Western musical styles that were not influenced by Zeppelin in any measurable fashion. The world of music is much bigger than hard rock.

Case in point: there are probably far more people who can hear the chorous of ABBA's Dancing Queen in their heads (in spite of years of therapy) than can hear Dazed and Confused or other seminal Zeppelin tunes. ....... your welcome. ;-) -/- Warren 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Eric Clapton article labels him as: one of the most respected and influential musicians of the rock-era, without much debate. The "rock-era" reference takes the "of all time" arguement away. Thoughts? Anger22 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That should probably be changed, too. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry,Fail?_} 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to many articles. Often the phrase "one of the first" is used. One of the first in terms of five bands, or in terms of one hundred. An example of this is the Cream article.

--FrasierC 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but as much as I'd like to list everything that's vague or subjective about every page on my watchlist, shouldn't we be using this page to discuss Zeppelin? :) MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 00:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly fine to keep it how it is, but also equally fine to change it to the according to the BBC suggestion. --FrasierC 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From The Beatles, a Featured Article no less: who continue to be held in the very highest regard for their artistic achievements, their huge commercial success, and their ground-breaking role in the history of popular music, not to mention popular culture.

So applied to this article: who continue to be held in high regard for their artistic achievements, their commercial success and their influential role in the history of Rock music. Anyone??? Anger22 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Anybody else? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 01:16 & 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it as it is, but this suggestion is acceptable and I would reluctantly bow to consensus if necessary.--WilliamThweatt 01:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We're back to where we were. The point is that despite all the nonsense people have used in defence of it, the statement puts them in the forefront of 20th Century music, up there presumably with Louis Armstrong, Burt Bacharach, Miles Davis, the Beatles and so on. I think anyone who thinks extensively about music would regard this sweeping statement as rubbish. It doesn't matter (despite all the slurs against me implying that it's my point of view) what I think (and I repeat that I personally like LZ a lot), this is about the objectivity of WP and as with many of the rock star pages, the opener is way way over the top. It's the sort of thing you might have believed at 18 in 1985 but alas no longer! So can someone else please now modify it to something more likely, as people are so determined to stop this being objectified they will try to have me removed if I do, despite the fact that all I am trying to do is challenge a ludicrously overblown intro line. Thanks. MarkThomas 07:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a slur that it's your own POV. It is. When you say, "I think that…" that's an opinion, not a fact. Led Zeppelin were hugely influencial. Read up on it. Whether they were as influencial as the Beatles is a different story entirely. --FrasierC 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, Read up on it. Corinne Bailey Rae doesnt sound like Zep. However, in a recent interview in Mojo magazine she went into some detail about how much she loved them, was influenced by them. Much the same applies to Peter Buck, Red Hot Chillis guitarist John Frusciante and now that I think of it, Tori Amos, who couldnt sound less like Zeppelin but once admitted that Whole Lotta Love gave her 'Oreo cookies in her panties'. Im not sure what that means but i think she likes the band! She actually went on to duet with Robert Plant on Down By the Seaside on a tribute album the name of which escapes me right now!. As the poster above states, you are confusing 'influenced by' with 'copies'. If that were the criteria i would have included rubbish like Whitesnake, Kingdom Come(remember them? yuck!) None of the above sound like Zeppelin. All of the above were influenced by them. p.s stop bickering you lot! Samgb 08:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually at least it's not as bad as the Rick Wakeman page intro which says he "is considered by many to be the most influential keyboardist of all time" -eeek. The "most influential" disease is spreading across Wikipedia and we are all powerless to stop it! MarkThomas 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

i like a bit of prog as much as the next man but jesus! im off to that page to change it to "is considered by many YES fans to be the most influental keyboardist of all time" :) Samgb 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

you beat me to it you swine! :)Samgb 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding influence - you don't have to sound like a band to be influenced by them, but not everyone who has ever heard a Led Zep album is instantly influenced by them, either. It is possible to be a Zeppelin fan and not claim them as an influence.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. We so far have two suggestions to combat the "most influential" disease...

1. Anger22's suggestion (...continue to be held in high regard...) which acknowledges their influence, but doesn't try to put a value on it.
2. My suggestion (...described by the BBC as...) which offers the current opinion, but doesn't try to state it as fact.

What does everyone think? #1? #2? Both? Any more suggestions? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 11:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Number #1. (I put no. 2 at first, but meant 1). --FrasierC 12:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) --FrasierC 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Number #1, but with the line as "continue to be held in high regard especially by hard rock fans" MarkThomas 12:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"by Hard rock fans" would limit the statement false as LZ are cited as an influence by musicians in every genre of music, not just Hard rock. Anger22 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tee hee. _every genre_. Led Zepp are such an influence on classical music and their impact on Madonna and Michael Jackson has been incalculable. And on the other hand we have reality away from the Zepp Heads. MarkThomas 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the fans on this page will also be contributors to [Star Trek the Next Generation] and can I point you all to that page as (by the standards of this page) a model of objectivity? It even has a critiques section, imagine! The slavering obeisance present here is not to be found at all on that page. Look and learn. MarkThomas 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the fans on this page will also be contributors to [Star Trek the Next Generation]"

How the hell do you get there?

It's funny. You go on and on about objectivity, and yet you yourself do nothing but insult everyone who dares to disagree with your opinion. The irony is beautiful. People disagree with you.

Welcome to the world. Just because we don't agree makes us subjective and you some kind of God. You ain't bigger than Jesus, and nowhere near as big as the Beatles. So be polite and argue your case nicely. It helps the world go round.

Just because you come in and go: "I THINK IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE. EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME!" Doesn't mean that you are right and everyone else who dares put their opinion on the matter needs to be insulted.

--FrasierC 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry FrasierC, you are right to pull me up on this - the fans on this page will also of course contribute to the Dr Who and Joe 90 pages, as well as another of the great classicists in 20th century music, Def Leppard. Thanks for the correction. MarkThomas 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC) image =

British DVD release

You really are maturity personified aren't you? People disagree with you. Get over it. Why can't you see people have other points of view? Why are you instantly right and everyone else is wrong? You cannot accept that people have different views. People do. Learn to live with it. You aren't God. You aren't an oracle. Shut up or play nicely.

--FrasierC 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will wager that if you asked 5,000 rock musicians--some famous, some not--what rock group influenced them most, Led Zeppelin would be, BY FAR, the most common answer. Just because more people can hum an ABBA song than Dazed and Confuzed that doesn't mean ABBA is more influencial. Example: Just because more people today can hum Carrie Underwood's "Jesus Take the Wheel" than Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor that doesn't mean Carrie Underwood is more influencial than Johann Sebastian Bach! Popular novelties and fads cannot compare with deep musical insight and invention. To the point about popularity, only one or two rock/pop artists in history are more famous than Led Zeppelin and they are the Beatles and Elvis Presley. I know young people these days who can't tell you who ABBA and Barbara Streisand are, but they know Zeppelin--heck, look around you, it seems like one in ten kids is wearing a Zeppelin shirt. And we've all heard the sayings "guitar god", "rock gods", "god of rock"--those sayings started with and were originally meant to refer to one band: Led Zeppelin. That alone, the beginning of the association between pagan mythology and rock and roll, for which this band is responsible, is reason enough to call them of of the most important musical groups of all time. To the accusation that Zeppelin had an effect only on one genre, I can only say that you are exposing your ignorance when it comes to Zeppelin's catalogue of music which includes some of the first use of synthesizers, one of the first true punk songs (Communication Breakdown), the popularization of folk rock, experimentations in reggae (D'yer Maker), and revolutionary experimentations in eastern music (Kashmir), not to mention their specialties: blues, folk, metal, psychedelia, etc. This is a band that contains the most imitated drummer of all time, one of the most imitated guitarists of all time, the most imitated hard rock vocalist of time, and a bassist/keyboardist that can play dozen different instruments. I cannot think of a single group that is more diverse and important to popular music in the 20th Century. 71.76.219.92 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Get an account and sign in - then we will take your arrogant rv's more seriously. MarkThomas 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• What a ridiculous rant. You can't think of a single group that is more diverse and important to popular music in the 20th Century than Led Zeppelin? Try the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who. Clashwho 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You, MarkThomas, clearly have the ability to be arrogant whether or not you are signed in, not that signing in is relavent in the first place. Persons may improve this encyclopedia and engage in discussion regardless of whether or not they choose to register. Dume7 18:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. Why do you consider the above user arrogant? Because they disagree with you? And why would you take someone more seriously because they have an account on Wikipedia? --FrasierC 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like waiting for a concensus would take to long and ultimate be a fruitless task. I've added both suggestions for now, if everybody can leave the main page alone for a while and work on a concensus as to what to keep and what to change, it would do the article so much more good than a huge edit war. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, that BBC quote mentions the "rock era" which is an unfamiliar (at least to many people) and vague phrase. I want to ask everyone if they agree with this statement, which I think is objectively maintainable: Led Zeppelin are one of the most popular and influencial music groups in 20th Century popular music.

I don't see how any person that knows music history could disagree with that. If you don't, name five popular music groups of the 20th Century who are more popular and influencial and I'll withdraw myself from this debate. I don't think those groups exist. MarkThomas seems to think that people are trying to say that Led Zeppelin is the biggest musical event in history, which is not the case. He keeps bringing up solo artists like Louis Armstrong, which are not qualified in this statement about musical GROUPS.

As for groups Zeppelin directly influenced: Guns N' Roses, the White Stripes, Whitesnake, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Skid Row, Tool, Mötley Crüe, Ratt, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Rainbow, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Twisted Sister, Poison, Queen, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, ZZ Top, Bon Jovi, Metallica, The Answer, and the Black Crowes for starers. Are all of theses bands good? No, but that isn't the point. Dume7 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with rock era at all. 20th Century popular music is neither more or less objective, and nor is it better or worse. I agree with the edit as it stands, however, I am not bothered either way. --FrasierC 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. Meets all Wiki criteria with regards to references and NPOV. Anger22 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, everbody knows what the 20th Century is, but what is the "rock era"? When did it begin? Has it ended? If so, when? The mention of the "rock era" also implies that Led Zeppelin performed in only one musical style, which isn't true and is what I was combating in the first place. Dume7 19:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is sooo true Dume7. As well as rock, they played heavy rock, hard rock, and folk rock. They were also a little bit jazz rocky sometimes. Gosh it feels good to be amongst such knowledge. MarkThomas 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also they played mock reggae on occasion, and Blues rock, blues probably being their biggest influence. --FrasierC 22:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The rock era is a quotation from a BBC. Thus it is sourced. Surely all the rock era means is the start of rock and roll, until whenever rock does not exist in one form another. I see your point however. Why not just use "rock" or "popular music", instead of 20th Century?

As for rock implying they only had one music style; it doesn't in the slightest. It implies that they perform songs that are one form of rock or another. It does not imply that they only played one type of music. --FrasierC 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just the problem--many of their songs are not rock at all: Bron Y Aur, Down by the Seaside, Black Mountainside. 71.76.219.92

That's so true temporary user 71.76.219.92! Blues is nothing to do with rock, and Dred Zephelin were nothing to do with the blues. Joke! Anyway, have you come across _blues_. You can look it up here. The Bluze. That was a big influence. Indeed both Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have often mentioned it in interviews. So did the other chap whose name I can't bring to mind right now. What was it they're famous for anyway? And whatever happened to that drummer guy who was always slightly behind and out of rhythm? Anyway, sorry, got to go now, writing a 500 word essay on the Genesis page about why Phil Collins was so much better than whats-his-name. MarkThomas 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bron Yr Aur Stomp is a rock song, but with a country music influence. It is still a rock song though, I feel. Down by the Seaside is a mix of their skills in various genres. It's still a rock song at heart, again, in my view. Black Mountainside is an instrumental, but I would say it is still rock music. Of course, these strech the boundaries of rock music, as do many other Led Zeppelin songs. But I still think that most Led Zeppelin songs were definately at least partially rock. --FrasierC 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to quote one of the most popular and influential rock historians of the 20th Century, "Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." - Homer Simpson :) MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to start a new page entitled "Great Rock Gods that Are so Obviously Totally Massive that Even the Simpsons don't take the Michael"? I know we all would here. Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Led Zepp. Fantastic. Ooops. Forgot the 70s have ended there for a minute. MarkThomas 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your strange vendetta against the 1970's and its music has no place here. BTW, it's abbrieviated Led "Zep"--one 'p', and Def Leppard's success came in the 80s; I don't know a single hardcore Zeppelin fan that likes them. lol ;) 71.76.219.92 00:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I think you missed the meaning of the quote entirely. It was taking the piss. That's generally what the Simpsons do. And I second Mighty Moose's question.

--FrasierC 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homer on that one. lolDume7 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel we're not paying Ledley Zeppelino enough cultural homage; for example their influence on Lord of the Rings fans has been immense, and many people who like Blakes 7 also fancy Robert Plant. Could that all be somehow combined onto one marvellous page? Thanks. MarkThomas 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this a classic case of trolling, as hilarious as it is.

--FrasierC 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, Bron Y Aur, and Bron Yr Stomp are two different songs. I would argue neither are rock (Bron Yr Aur Stomp borders on bluegrass), but especially Bron Y Aur. As for Black Mountainside, there is simply nothing rock about it, if anything it's a combination of eastern (note the tabla drums) and folk music. They were a rock band first and foremost--I admit this--but to say they were only that is inaccurate IMO. Other well known songs that aren't rock (by my estimation, at least): Going to California, That's the Way, and I don't know how to classify Friends or Hats off to (Roy) Harper. Of course their are coutless other songs that have obvious Indian, classical (The Song Remains the Same), or folk influences. What does this have to do with Zeppelin's popularity or influence? 71.76.219.92 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"FrasierC, Bron Y Aur, and Bron Yr Stomp are two different songs." Yeah, I knew that, sorry about me putting down the wrong one though.

I think that all their songs have rock elements, however their songs are fusions of other genres.

And it has nothing to do with their popularity or influence, other than that "the rock era" was protested against because it implies Led Zeppelin did only one type of music. I was saying it suggests nothing of the sort. --FrasierC 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

MarkThomas, why are you so obsessed with my not signing in? Who cares? Your sarcasm is becoming old fast, and your attempts to defame Zeppelin have failed, and miserably so. What does does Phil Collins have to do with anything? Also, I'm pretty sure that he would readily admit that John Bonham is one of the greatest if not the greatest drummer of all time. And why have you mentioned so many solo artists? Louis Armstrong? Last time I checked, jazz trumpeters and parlor pianists weren't exactly burning up the charts, nor have they ever been influencial outside of there own extremely small, shrinking musical markets. I'm sorry, but jazz is a genre that has been in its death throes for the past twenty years, and I have perpective on it because I'm an American (how does your own medicine taste?). lol None of the songs I mentioned are blues based, which once again demonstrates your ignorance Zeppelin's musical catalogue. Led Zeppelin was influenced by the blues (which I have more perspective on because I'm an American, lol), fine--what is your point? Why don't you stop wasting your time here and improve and article on a topic about which your thinking isn't inexplicably skewed towards hatred? 71.76.219.92 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

FrasierC, Bron Y Aur is simply a solo acoustic peice based on a medeival folk tune--no vocals, no drums. Black mountainside is similar but with eastern Tabla drums. Where are the rock elements in these songs? Please point them out; I don't see how they could be construed as rock music. I guess I'm confused because on the one hand you maintain that the phrase does not imply that Zeppelin only did rock music, but on the other hand, you're saying they only did rock music. See what I mean? 71.76.219.92 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase implies neither that they only did rock music or that they did all sorts of music. I think you are missing my fundamental point; they were mainly a rock band. They were in the rock era. Therefore, the "rock era" quote implies exactly that, they were a very influencial rock band in the rock era. It does not imply that they only did one type of rock music. Do you see what I am saying? The rock era is a time period. It does not imply that they only did hard rock or blues rock, or any other genre of rock. They did many different kinds of rock, but I disagree that any of their songs could truly be called "blues", country or whatever solely. Not that it matters. The rock era implies a time period, not what music they play at any rate.

As for those Led Zeppelin songs; that is your opinion. I say that they do have rock elements, and are listed as such on websites, including Wikipedia. I agree; they stretch the boundaries of the definition of rock, but they are still rock. Black mountain side is definately a case in point; it is folk rock, I would say, but on the folk side, rather than the rock side. Whether I am wrong in your opinion or not is irrelevant; it does not make the BBC quote wrong. --FrasierC 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We both know that we have opinions--there's no need for us to tell each other; it doesn't exactly help to illuminate the discussion. The "rock era" does imply what music they play: you wouldn't want to say Barbara Streisand is one of the best singers of the "rock era" because she is not a rock artist and the rock era is not relavent to her. I say they were mainly a rock band, but they were not only a rock band. Please point out for me the rock elements in those songs. Black Mountainside and Bron Y Aur don't contain one single trait found in rock music. Just because the band played mostly rock that doesn't mean you can use a blanket statement and attatch rock to everything they do: folk rock, reggae rock, blues rock, because it is a gross oversimplification. That's exactly what happens when wikipedians start categorizing songs--they say to themselves "Bob Dylan played folk," and then they blindly categorize every single of his songs as folk, which is completely inaccurate. Are most of them folk? Yes. Are all of them folk? No. The same goes for Zeppelin. Are most of their songs rock? Yes. Are all of them rock? No. It just isn't that simple. Each song must be examined in and of itself, regardless of the genre generally associated with the creator of the music. I think if one does that they will find that groups like Zeppelin are much more deep than just "different types of rock". The BBC Quote is factually correct but, as with most things on Wikipedia the problem is a stylistic one; that is, I think there are better ways to acknowledge the scope of Led Zeppelin's work, and quotes are generally looked down upon as beginnings to articles. 71.76.219.92 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether I am not illuminating discussion or not. It's pointless. There is no point discussing what I think about the genre of Led Zeppelin's long list. It doesn't help the article in the slightest, and we are not going to reach a consesus. I do not wish to argue my case on this issue, because I still believe what I believe. I don't really care if you think I am wrong or not. Doesn't mean I have to somehow move from my POV because you refuse to accept it's credibility. Instead of wishing to argue about this further; think about the sentence at hand. You say that you think they are mainly a rock band. Whether you think that some of their songs are not rock is irrelevant. They were a rock band. Thus they are included in the "rock era" sentence. Do you see what I am saying? They were mainly a rock band, thus the BBC is right when it talks about the rock era. Whether or not one or two of their songs, in some person on the internet's opinion, were not rock, does not mean the term "rock era" is not correct. That's my point. Led Zeppelin were a rock band. Thus they can be classified as one of the most influential bands in the rock era. Simple as that. Just because you think they didn't just play rock, is of no concequence to that sentence. It does not imply that they just played rock, just that they were a rock band. --FrasierC 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence is too narrow, and quotes are an inferior way to open an article. We've been over this already: It's like saying in the opening sentence of the Leonardo Da Vinci article "Leonardo Da vince was a painter". It is factually true, but it is far too narrow because he was also a mechanic, inventor, botanist, poet, sculptor, historian, anatomist, musician, and politician--this scope of abilities should be acknowledged in the opening sentence Your argument is one that could just as easily apply to the opening sentence which I favored: "Led Zeppelin was an English rock band and are one of the most influencial and popular groups in popular music history." That sentence is accurate, acknowledges scope, and it isn't a quote, which shouldn't be used to open articles. The difference between the two statements is that one is more restrictive to rock music, which brings us back to the original point that you have so carefully pushed aside and refused to acknowledge: Were they only a rock band or were they not? I say they were not. You seem to say they were. I have given examples of songs which I feel have no connection to rock music, and have explained my reasoning for my categorization--you simply say they are rock songs and refuse to provide any reasoning why that is so. So I'll ask again, will you please point out the said "rock elements" in all of the mentioned songs? 71.76.219.92 15:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say they are a rock band. They are a rock band, by any criteria. The quote is not too narrow therefore. The quote is not "Led Zeppelin only played rock songs." It suggests that they were a rock band in the rock era. That's all. It's not narrow, and your analogy is not a comparison at all. The fact is the the quote is far more objective than just they are one of the most influential bands. It means that we acknowledge that there are people who may not feel this, even though, one could very well argue it's a fact. Remember, I am not arguing against your statement because I don't believe it's true. I am arguing against it simply because I think the BBC quote is fine. I think you are perfectly right in what you say about the popularity and influence of Led Zeppelin. And I'll tell you again, I have no intention arguing with you about the songs you have mentioned. I believe what I want to believe. I don't really care what you think, to be perfectly honest. It has no relevance to the article. Just because you think it's not rock doesn't make it so. Being excessively aggressive and maintaining they are not rock doesn't make it so, either. I am not worried particulary if you and others think your version is better, I just prefer this version. It seems the most objective to me.

--FrasierC 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that they are one of the most influencial bands just as much as it's a fact that the sun is the center of the universe. Are we supposed to leave room for geocentrists in the planetary articles? Saying Zeppelin isn't one of the most influencial bands would be just as silly. The mentioned songs are not rock, and that is also a fact; There are no room for your opinions in that case either. "I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit. 71.76.219.92 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

" The mentioned songs are not rock, and that is also a fact; There are no room for your opinions in that case either."

Who says? You? There are no room for your opinions either. That's the point. That's why the articles suppose to be neutral.

"I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit"

I'll tell you what's self centred; believing that just because I do not wish to argue over such a trivial matter, that you see fit to "edit the article as you see fit." I may not wish to argue or negotiate. That doesn't mean others don't want to. So it is not up to you to do "as you see fit", at all. This is an example of being self centred. Not not wishing to argue.

I am perfectly up for a reasonable discussion or debate. What you offer, however, is not a reasonable discussion or debate. It's just you saying; what I say is fact, there is no room for opinion here. Where's the argument? Do you see that calling someone self centred is rather hypocritical when you say your own opinion is a fact? What I am saying is that I am not worried if you think they aren't rock. You can discuss these two songs until your blue in your face, but you have not even read my main point, as you are too busy trying in saying your opinion is a fact. It matters not if two or three of their songs are rock or not. They were a rock band, yes? They were in the rock era, yes? Therefore, they were one of the most influencial bands in the rock era. That's my point, that you seem to skirt around quite brilliantly.

As I said before, you being excessively aggressive doesn't mean you can do as you see fit. It's unnecessary, quite frankly. --FrasierC 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have opinions--I have facts. I will edit as I see fit. Good day to you. 71.76.219.92 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well guess what; you don't have facts. That's absolute rubbish. Do you vote? Is it a fact whom the best party is? Who do you think is the best guitarist? Is that a fact?

And you have ignored my main point. Doing so is a self centred cop out. Please answer my point. It's funny, you accuse me of not illuminating discussion, and then you patently ignore my argument. Whose the hypocrite again?

Lastly, even if I don't want to argue, or, in actuality, you want to ignore my points with your supreme arrogance, that doesn't mean you can just change the article "how you see fit". You see, in this world, people are allowed to disagree. You see, saying "I don't have opinions, I have facts", isn't exactly illuminating discussion is it? --FrasierC 10:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I confess that I haven't read all of the above bickering, but FWIW, I don't believe that Led Zeppelin's widespread influence is seriously disputed, and I think that qualifying the statement by citing the BBC only serves to weaken the lead paragraph - it is, after all, Led Zeppelin's popularity and influence itself, rather than the BBC's assessment of such, which makes Led Zeppelin noteworthy. I note that the BBC do not site their sources for this statement, and as such, I don't see that this reference really achieves anything. It is not necessary to cite a source when stating every simple fact, and enough artists have sited Led Zeppelin as an influence that it may be considered as a simple fact that their music remains hugely influential. And man, they suck. --TheMadBaron 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. However, generally, it is better there are citations and quotes for a Wikipedia article. It makes it a more balanced argument. It means that the fact is backed up with evidence. Which is good, I think. --FrasierC 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely - it's just that the current "citation" isn't really evidence of anything other than the opinion of one BBC hack. If it could be demonstrated that a number of other popular (and, preferably, influential) artists have named Led Zep as an influence, which is undoubtedly the case, then that would have some value. A seperate section on Zeps influence might be in order, or it could be incorporated into the Covers and Tributes section. The opening paragraph need only note that Led Zeppelin are one of the most successful and influential groups in the history of popular music. The term 'rock era' doesn't really mean anything. --TheMadBaron 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just googled "influences Led Zeppelin", and got a number of hits that might make for better citations. Britannica online states that the band "came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal", and musicmatch.com lists these artists as "followers":

AC/DC, The Academy Is..., Aerosmith, Alias, Alice in Chains, Alien Canopy, Trey Anastasio, Angels, Antigone Rising, Anubis Spire, El Arranque, Babylon A.D., Bad Company, Beastie Boys, Bedlam, Betty Blowtorch, The Black Crowes, Black Oak Arkansas, Black Stone Cherry, Blind Melon, Blue Öyster Cult, Blueprint Car Crash, Marc Bolan, Bon Jovi, Los Bondadosos, Bonham, Jon Bon Jovi, Boston, Michelle Branch, Norine Braun, The Buck Pets, Jeff Buckley, Jerry Cantrell, Eric Carr, Cheap Trick, The Cherry Valence, Richard Christy, Chyld, Clutch, Chris Cornell, David Coverdale, Crazy Daisy Band, The Cult, Dark Angel, Darkness, The Datsuns, Dead Meadow, Death Angel, Deep Purple, Def Leppard, Jan Carlo DeFan, Diamond Head, Died Pretty, Dio, Dispatch, Dread Zeppelin, Dream Theater, Dropbox, Billy Duffy, East West, El Pus, Electric Eel Shock, Elefantes, J. englishman, Extra Virgin, Extreme, Faster Pussycat, Fates Warning, The Fire Theft, Five Horse Johnson, Flotsam & Jetsam, Foghat, Lita Ford, Foreigner, 4 Non Blondes, Ace Frehley, From Autumn to Ashes, Galapagos, Ghost, Giuffria, Godsmack, Golden Earring, The Golden Gods, Gooding, Lou Gramm, Great White, Green River, Guns N' Roses, Sammy Hagar, Halfway to Gone, The Handful, Hanoi Rocks, Hawthorne Heights, The Headstones, Heart, James Hetfield, House of Lords, Huevo Duro, Impala, Iron Maiden, It Bites, Jane's Addiction, Joan Jett, Journey, Juanes, Judas Priest, Juicy Lucy, Jumbo's Killcrane, The K.G.B., Kick Axe, King's X, Kingdom Come, Kiss, Kix, Richie Kotzen, Lenny Kravitz, Bruce Kulick, Leaf Hound, B.D. Lenz, The Letters Organize, Leusemia, Aaron Lewis, Living Colour, Llama, Loudness, LOURDS, Loverboy, Andre Luiz, Phil Lynott, Yngwie Malmsteen, Mama Zeus, Manal, Mandrácula, Maria Fatal, Jim Martin, J Mascis, Masters of Reality, Brian May, Meat Puppets, Melon Diesel, Men, Women & Children, Freddie Mercury, Metallica, Minus, The Mission UK, Mississippi Cactus, Moneda Dura, Michael Monroe, Montrose, Ronnie Montrose, Mother Love Bone, Mötley Crüe, The Muggs, Nazareth, Neglected Orphans, Rick Nielsen, Nirvana, Nuclear Assault, The Opus, Ossiris, Overmars, The Painkillers, Pearl Jam, Joe Perry, Plug Spark Sanjay, Poison, The Power Station, Primus, Prince, Queen, Queens of the Stone Age, Queensrÿche, Quiet Riot, Radio Active Cats, Rainbow, Ratt, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Reef, R.E.M., The Rewinds, Janet Robin, Henry Rollins, David Lee Roth, Rush, Richie Sambora, Samhain, Satchel, Michael Schenker, Scorpions, Seahorses, Secret Machines, Gene Simmons, Sir Lord Baltimore, Skank, Slash, Slash's Snakepit, Brad Smith, Soundgarden, Southern Death Cult, Spinal Tap, Sponge, Spooky Tooth, Billy Squier, Paul Stanley, Stinking Lizaveta, Stone Temple Pilots, Styx, Subway to Sally, Sutra, T. Rex, Tahures Zurdos, Talk Show, Roger Taylor, Tesla, Thin Lizzy, Thornley, Tool, Tora Tora, Trapeze, Trouble, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, UFO, Unified Theory, Uriah Heep, Steve Vai, Van Halen, Vandenberg, Versus, Vinnie Vincent, Wallop, W.A.S.P., Ween, Westworld, Whitesnake, Wild Horses, Wolfgang, Wolfmother, Zakk Wylde, Xendra, Young Heart Attack, Zebra, Zipper, Ziroq, Zoo Story

Influential? Hell, yeah. Two of the above listed don't even completely suck. --TheMadBaron 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This list missed out several important musical groups, including Cliff Richard and the Shadows, the Zarnecki Brothers and Voodoo Love. Also Bratz, Emerga and Tefelump, Caravan, Chic, Desiree, Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Donovan, The Elephants (staggering band!), Potempkin, The Lizards, Zardoz, The Hugeonots, Beliaza, Freegal, The Mouse, Steve Hackett, Bezezus and Tanaflour. Also The Nerve and Plastic. I think that includes everyone now who was ever influenced. Jimmy Page is currently appearing at the Dread Theatre Royal, Clifton in "America the Beautiful", a play by Charlton Heston, which entirely features people being shot. Peter Green is appearing as a bridge support outside Telford. Robert Plant died his hair in 1981. That isn't his hair in The Song Remains of course, it's an extra. And they so did eat sharks! And bed linen! MarkThomas 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Thomas aims to mislead. I happen to know that Zardoz is a Sean Connery movie, and Mouse is a sort of fish. TheMadBaron 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps those citations would be better then--FrasierC 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

Although I think Spinal Tap is rather a pointless influence. :D

I guess so, since that band is obviously a joke, making a mockery of the genre, and nobody in their right mind would take them seriously. Pearl Jam are out, too, then.... --TheMadBaron 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam is another with the most influencial artist sydrome. Who isn't influencial on Wikipedia? --FrasierC 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've given your question lengthy consideration, and I think it's probably me.... --TheMadBaron 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree that Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential bands in history. When it comes to heavy metal. The most influential group would have to be Black Sabbath. Black Sabbath has influenced artists such as Soundgarden and Metallica. Arguments could be made to support Judas Priest as the #1 metal band of all-time. Guns N' Roses has its own place in history with the best-selling debut album of all-time with 15 millions copies sold for Appetite For Destruction. Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Guns N' Roses or Metallica would get my vote for the #1 metal band of all-time. AC/DC deserves consideration.

>> Black Sabbath? More influential than Led Zeppelin??? Is that you Ozzy??? Seriously...you have *got* to be kidding. Nobody is that stupid!

AC/DC's Highway to Hell gets my vote for the #1 metal song of all-time. #1 rock group of all-time- that would be the Rolling Stones.

Just because you don't think they're very good doesn't make them not influencial. --FrasierC 23:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not much needed to be said on this...there is not doubt that Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential bands, if not the most, of all time.

Indeed they are. Oh, Led Zeppelin outsold the Stones 5to1 during the 70s. But even then you cannot take away the merits of the Stones during their so called Lean Spell. The early 70s was the time of LZ. Their early albums laid down the earliest innovations of Hard Rock, and their deviations into folk, Celtic, middle eastern etc. expanded their work to give it variations. This allowed them to avoid monotony of simply hard rock, but at their core they were a blues-rock and hard-rock band. Similar innovations were undertaken by The Beatles, The Clash, Bob Dylan and indeed the Rolling Stones, particularly during their peak. That is where all bands create their legacy: their peaks. Dabanhfreak 12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

this discussion is a bit silly,i know someone above me said that black sabbath were probably the most influental,guess what,Ozzy Osbourne has listed Led Zeppelin's debut album as one of his favourites,thereby influencing one of the most influental bands of all time.David Coverdale (Deep Purple and Whitesnake) has said that "Communication Breakdown" is his favourite song.

the list could go on and on,just about every album they made (except 2 or 3 albums i think, Led Zeppelin(debut album), The Song Remains The Same (live) and Coda, wich was released 2 years after the group disbanded.) went to the top of the charts in BOTH the UK and US,and Stairway To Heaven is probably the most played rock song on US radio,with a total playtime of over 50 years in an existence of 36 years. it is indeed very hard to deny that Led Zeppelin was/is hugely popular and hugely influencal,there is an incredibly large amount of Led Zeppelin tributes out there,even going as far as parodies (Dread Zeppelin),they even knocked the beatles of the top spot with Led Zeppelin II,i think the fact that they are hugely influencal is undeniable Lord revan 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people here have gone away from the original question and/or put in opinions. The answer is quite clear. There was a poll in Guitar World not long ago of the 100 best albums. Led Zep IV got number one and i forget what place there other albums got. So obviously they are one of the most if not the most influential bands of the 20 century. Now sombody under me is probablly going to put down an opionion or something that has nothing to do with the question. If you do have actual facts against my statement then post it.\

Well, I must agree that they are one of the most influental bands in rock history, but who do they influence today? I live in Serbia, and 99% of Serbian population listens either to turbo-folk or rap music. "Stairway to Heaven" IS a legendary song. But, "Mistreated" or "Voodoo Chile" are also legendary songs. So, top 3 bands for me are:

1. 1: Deep Purple
2. 2: The Jimi Hendrix Experience
3. 3: Led Zeppelin

Today there is nothing comparable to there 3 bands. Maddona? Pure rubbish. Britney Spears? Even worse. 50 Cent? That made me fall of my chair. Evanescence? Nothing at all. Not that there weren't other great artists like Chuck Berry, Queen, Rolling Stones, Metallica, Eric Clapton, AC/DC, Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, U2 and so on, but nobody listens to them now. Nobody listens to neither reggae or jazz, for example. Yes, they ARE influental, and I really don't understand what MarkThomas is talking about.

Maybe this will make people that claims they werent influental shut up (watch the whole thing) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYscoIx69A

Reverted anon edit a bit ago...

(then had to sign off - sorry!)

Hi all - I'm belatedly explaining my recent revert on the article. I reverted an edit by an IP that changed the rather controversial statement being discussed here at length and also deleted the links to Led Zeppelin in other language Wikis. I reverted the edit because for two reasons:

1. the discussion on this talk page about that statement is not complete, so it should not be changed yet and
2. it removed the links to Zeppelin in other language Wikipedias.

I'd like to clear the air and let everyone know that I have no opinion on the statement, despite what some may think. I don't know too much about Zeppelin, so I'm abstaining from the discussion. Additionally, I'd like to remind the IP user that links to other language Wikipedias should not be removed from an article and that care should be taken in edit summaries (WP:CIVIL). This goes for Mark as well. Srose (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why is that user 71.76.219.92 can say something like this above: "I will believe what I believe" is an ignorant, self-centered cop-out, meant to negate any possibility of negotiation, and because that is the case, I will be forced to edit as I see fit. 71.76.219.92 00:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)" and not be banned for a while. And yet when I make perfectly reasonable and reasoned edits to this page, pointing out something which has been agreed, that the opening statement was basically nonsense, I get threatened on my page with banning? I feel that something is strange somewhere in the management of WP. Could it be that we are dealing here with the phenomenon of mindless fandom? Certainly when you look across Wikipedia generally there are numerous examples of absurdly sentimental and grovelling fan pages, better off as independent sites, which would never have been allowed in a printed "former" encyclopedia. MarkThomas 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, Mark. You made reasoned arguments, that's true. That part was fine. What wasn't was the strop you got in when you were trying to wind people up. That's hardly innocent behaviour, is it? That was trying to provoke a reaction from people. --FrasierC 13:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Band Name Origin

John Entwistle's phrase was specifically about a "lead zeppelin". Not a "lead balloon". If all he and Keith had suggested was a "lead ballon" then they wouldn't get credit for coming up with the name. John Entwistle even came up with an album cover design that inspired the cover art of Led Zeppelin's first album. 24.49.83.40 00:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The naming of the band is still a legend and we will never know who said exactly what. In the rock and roll community both are accepted but there are more versions of the legend. --Midnight Rider 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hindenburg (airship)article contradicts this article in describing the origin of the band's name. That article says Keith Moon originally said that the band (presumably Jimmy Page's newly formed band) would would "sink like a lead balloon".

Which article is correct? Enduser 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He said lead Zeppelin. --FrasierC 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? I was under the impression that nobody really remembers exactly what was said. --TheMadBaron 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Hammer of the Gods" and other sources say that is the case, but it could not be. One would presume he did say Lead Zeppelin, otherwise there would be no way you could attibute the name to Keith Moon. --FrasierC 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He might merely have inspired the name with his comment. Page might have just thought that Zeppellin sounded better than balloon. He'd be right. I'm inclined to think that Moon probably said "balloon", partly because that's the version of the story I first heard, maybe thirty years ago, but also because I can't see why anybody would ever have claimed that he said "balloon" if he didn't. But let's face it - as inconvenient as it might be, we just don't really know, and probably never will. --TheMadBaron 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Hammer of the Gods" actually states that John Entwistle was the person who made the "lead balloon" comment, although I've also seen it attributed to Moon. InTheFlesh? 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. I think Moon heard the phrase from Entwistle, and then used it in relation to who were then the New Yardbirds. --FrasierC 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

After the Yardbirds broke up, Jimmy Page set forth on a mission to create a brand new band called the New Yardbirds. After he found Robert, Bonzo, and Jonesy, they stuck with the name until the drummer of The Who (who's name escapes me at the moment) told them they were going to to sink like a Led Zeppelin. Well, they didn't. But, they thought the name was pretty cool so they kept it. Hence, Led Zeppelin. ((User- zackattack141))

I read the lead balloon comment in a number of places. However, I assume if it was something like "sink like a lead zeppelin" it would have been sensible to write "led" so that it distinguishes the pronunciation from "lead" (as in leash). Candy 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"No name - especially a band name - comes out of a vacuum, and the one quickly agreed upon, Led Zeppelin, is not exception. There is a long tradition of anecdote that ascribes the name to two members of The Who, John Entwistle and Keith Moon. As we've seen, back in 1966 The Who's rhythm team grew tired of the stresses and strains inside their band and seriously contemplated leaving to form a new supergroup with Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page. In 1968-69, supergroups were a new and very fashionable phenomenon in rock, and though this earlier prototype never got off the ground, in conversation one night Entwistle an Moon had joked that such a line-up would have gone down like a lead balloon ... - an old English expression for something that is a complete disaster. Elaborating on the joke, the image became altered to a lead zeppelin - an even more spectacularly amusing image of self-immolation. Page liked not only the idea but also the image conjured - the perfect combination of heavy and light, combustibility and grace. Filed away for future reference, two years later he decided it fit his needs.

This could be the real origin of the name, but there are, of course, alternatives. A friend of Page's from the mid 1960s has related that during 1968 Page, like many stars of the day, often sported badges, trinkets, and other accessories on his clothes. One of these was a small replica zeppelin made of - you guessed it - lead. Perhaps contemplating the clever heavy-and-light contradictions contained in Iron Butterfly's name, Page found what he was looking for pinned to his own shirt. Perhaps it was a combination of circumstances - a timely coincidence." - From Led Zeppelin The Story of a Band and Their Music 1968-1980, by Keith Shadwick Copyright 2005.

Clearly there is some confusion over the origin of the name, so I think an exact statement would be inappropriate.Mister B. 04:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I am going to make an edit to the article to reflect the confusion over the naming. Mister B. 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has re-modified the article since yesterday... does anyone know why this was partially reverted? It seems that none of this discussion was taken into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&diff=107328412&oldid=107272213 Mister B. 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert this. If Erle Grey wishes to argue the changes he made, then please do so in here, and subsequent changes can be made. Mister B. 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

"Presence was a platinum seller, but the album received mixed responses from critics and fans; while some appreciated the looser style, others dismissed it as sloppy, and some critics speculated that the band member's legendary excesses might have caught up with them at last. The time "Presence" was recorded marked the beginning of Page's injecting heroin, which may have interfered with Led Zeppelin's later live shows and studio recordings, although Page has denied this."

How about citations on some of these things, including the reviews?

Like this from Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/224305/review/5945483/presence

That's just an example obviously. --FrasierC 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Do it. --TheMadBaron 20:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the initial quotation,
but does refer to a slight problem with a citation in the article.
The wiki link at the bottom of the page to the Stephen Davis novel,
"Hammer of the Gods" does not, in fact, link to an article about this book.
It links to an article about a roll playing game.
There does not appear to be an article about Davis' book,
though the link to Davis himself is valid.
Until now I have had no involvement in the development of this page
Perhaps someone more closely affiliated with the work would prefer to
do the proverbial honors.

- Rockthing 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Samples, covers, and tributes

I can't help thinking that the list of cover versions should be reduced or summarised. That so many covers exist is certainly worth noting, but the list can never include all commercially released covers (there are more than 100 versions of "Stairway to Heaven" alone), and the selection seems to be somewhat arbitrary. --TheMadBaron 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could break it off into another article on Zeppelin trivia or something like that. InTheFlesh? 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumours....

IMO, the article is a little too "dry" for it's subject....

"If the band's popularity on stage and record was impressive, so too was its reputation for excess and off-stage wildness. Led Zeppelin traveled in a private jet (nicknamed The Starship), rented out entire sections of hotels (most notably the Continental Hyatt House in Los Angeles), and became the subject of many of rock's most famous stories of debauchery. Tales of trashed hotel rooms and groupies have become more extraordinary with each passing year. Several people associated with the band, such as tour manager Richard Cole, would later write books about the wild escapades of the group."

I think this could be expanded. For example, somrthing about the legend concerning Led Zeppelin pleasuring a groupie with a mud shark [7] would liven the article up a bit.

"Malicious critics and superstitious fans imputed the bands' misfortunes to a "curse", said to be related to Page's supposed interest in the occult."

This is another part of the Led Zep legend which could be expanded. Worthy additions might include the dubious allegations concerning Pages actions at the time of Bonhams death ("he stood over him wearing Satanist robes and performing a useless spell" [8]) and the alleged backwards messages in "Stairway to Heaven". --TheMadBaron 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. However, generally Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumours, but I suppose it would be relevant to add something about the occult. However, I think the backwards message should be kept on the Stairway to Heaven page. --FrasierC 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

We deal in facts, hopefully, but it is a fact that rumours exist.... in Led Zeppelin's case, an awful lot of very strange and silly rumours exist, and it seems a bit remiss not to cover them better, when sources can be cited. It seems to me as if we have a very long and detailed article which, nonetheless, really only says that the band had a very successful career, when actually they're so much more interesting than that.

I agree that the backwards message nonsense is best dealt with in detail on the Stairway to Heaven and Backmasking pages, but it's such enduring nonsense that a sentence on the subject, and a nod in that direction would seem to be in order. I'd have a go at it, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, how to approach it, or if it would go over like the proverbial lead balloon.... --TheMadBaron 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Project?

Is there a Led Zeppelin wikiproject? If not, would someone like to help me organize one? Billvoltage 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blood transfusion

"Robert suffered a broken ankle and Maureen was very badly injured; a flight back to London and a timely blood transfusion saving her life."

This is odd. The implication is that facilities for blood transfusion didn't exist in Greece in 1975, which seems scarcely credible. If the flight came before the transfusion, then, far from saving her life, it might have killed her. I would speculate that it was the transfusion alone which saved her life, and was then followed by the flight, which didn't. Does anybody have a reliable account of the events surrounding the accident? TheMadBaron 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In Hammer of the Gods, it says that there was no blood of her type on the island of Rhodes. (It wasn't Greece it was Rhodes, which, being an island off of Greece, is more likely not to have had the relevant blood). Her sister could not give her all the blood she needed either. As well as this, if I remember rightly, the Greek autorities were accusing her of being drunk while driving, not that that has much to do with the blood transfusion.

--FrasierC 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "The Battle of Evermore" is the only Led Zeppelin song to feature a guest vocalist, the late Sandy Denny. [16] Led Zeppelin II, the song 'Thank You' features a guest vocalist? Source disagrees, might be wrong though Just checking :)

Got rid of the whole criticism article

Seriously people, just because one band said a bad thing about the band does not mean we have to start a whole article about it people, I mean people say bad things about Elvis, that does not mean we have to start a whole criticism article ABOUT Elvis. I mean people said bad things about The Beatles, that does not mean we have to start a whole criticism article about The Beatles, okay? -TheBird71.236.225.50 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is it bullshit but it is POV and reeks of an agenda. Either rewrite it substantially to remove the antagonistic tone or get rid of it completely. Samgb 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Or just do what I ended up doing and remove the POV bits. The rest is fair comment i suppose. I left the Van Halen picture alone as an example of a band influenced by Zep even though I think we could probably come up with a better example. The section could probably be expanded on somewhat but i can settle for just removing the bad bits for now. Samgb 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the prick who just put all that nonsense about Skid Row and Hair Metal back in and didnt even have the courtesy to come on and defend the decision? Nice manners. I smell a revert war!Samgb 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again the section listing any and all hair metal band the user can think of and 'emo' has been put back in. Can the person who is doing it please do me the common courtesy of explaining its presence? Its not relevant it is an opinion. Samgb 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Legacy and Criticism

I see the legacy but I don't see any criticism... --FK65 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Icarus or Apollo?

This page says the winged dude for Swan Song Records is Icarus, but is mistaken for apollo (etc) BUT swan songs page says that it is apollo and is mistaken for icarus (etc) so which is it? Apollo, or icarus?

It is Apollo, the logo is clearly based off of William Rimmer's painting Evening: Fall of Day, and in addition to numerous sources on the internet saying it's Apollo in the painting, the name of the painting is Evening: Fall of Day, portraying the SUN God falling. So it's Apollo.

Led Zeppelin#Houses of the Holy - It also contradicts the William Rimmer article. -th1rt3en 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd, since Apollo is typically depicted as clothed, wingless, and driving a chariot (the sun was the chariot's wheel). Which 'sources on the internet' say it's Apollo? Are these sources from the art world, or are they Zeppelin pages? Are there any other examples in ancient or modern art of a winged Apollo? MFNickster 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess the question has never been officially answered, on this about.com Q&A (http://experts.about.com/q/Led-Zeppelin-501/Icarus-Apollo.htm) it says in another Q&A Plant said it was Icarus, but it states the painting the logo is clearly taken from is Apollo, and leaves it as ambiguous saying that Plant has never been good with Zep info.

Good thing that the man who makes 1/4 of "Zep info" has never been very good with it... Anyways, I guess, and think, that it should be removed until we can find a source. I suppose add it to the list of things to do, anyone agree?Billvoltage 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List both sources, and both explanations. WesleyDodds 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FIRST U.S. CONCERT

Where was LZ's first US concert. I was at the one in Denver in Dec 1968 (I believe the date is correct) and I thought it was their first in the US. Now I here that there was one in CA before that. In Denver they opened for Vanilla Fudge if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for any clarifying info.

I just quickly checked three sources all of which note 26 December

as the first date in the US in Denver Colorado.

The question is, which to cite. :-)

Godwin's Illustrated Collector's Guide, Shinko Music's Archive Series vol.7 on Led Zeppelin

or the somewhat controversial Richard Cole book? I'm sure there are more.

- Rockthing 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why compare to Liberace?

I found it strange to compare Led Zeppelin's colorful clothing to Liberace's. I can't think of two more different artists, with different audiences from different generations. Rock bands had been wearing colorful, outrageous clothing since the 60's. Furthermore, I think Liberace started wearing his signature extravagant costumes in the 50's. Therefore, I don't think there is any relation between their clothing choices.

TrampledUF 04:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Influence on other bands

I'd like to add my humble oppinion on the discussion of led zeppelin's influence if i may. I read the discussion and was puzzled to hear poeple questioning the popularity and influence of the band. One comment made was that someone could'nt even see the influence that the band had in the 80's. I would combat this statement with the fact that guns'n'roses, as much as i despise them, identify Led Zeppelin as one of their major influences. As Guns'n'Roses were one of the biggest acts in the late 80's it is made quite evident of there influence. Another to bands that started in earlier era's that peeked in the 80's, Queen and Aerosmith, also identify Led as a major forerunner of their own work. Roger Taylor was recently Quoted at an awards evening saying "we nicked loads of our stuff from them" a blatant admitance of influence in Queen's work.

Another element of their influence that people havn't considered is jimmy Page's influence and inventiveness as a producer. Once you start to look deeply into the way he produced Led albums you uncover that he's techniques were revolutionary. Every thing down to the way he micked the drum kit was new and bordering on genius. This production method produced a perfectionist's final product resulting in a nrilliant new sound in hard rock for others to follow. This kind of production has even influenced the likes of Radiohead's johnny Greenwood, Greenwood has adopted the role of Lead guitarist/producer that Page practicly invented.

As for the claim that they are no longer an influence in modern music or even popular i say this dear sirs. They are one of the only bands to exceed 250 million album sales , and as they only sold around half of these during their time as a band this proves that they have an ongoing and extensive fan base. Modern artists such as wolfmother, muse and White stripes take huge influence from them. So maybe they bear no relivence to your average music fan of today, but this is a time when the tedious likes of johny borrel and the feeling (with their koo koo koo crazy's)top the charts. Led Zeppelin created sophisticated, inovative and difficult music. In a time when the bar chord is the only chord bands know the existance of maybe Led Zeppelin aren't that influential, but to me thats a comment on modern day music. At the end of the day the artists that push the boundaries of modern music never deny the influence of Led Zeppelin. So therefore the fact that not many bands sound like Led is because they just can't pull it off. If you look a little deeper yousee that the band had a profound affect on the music industry. Thanks.........

Led Zeppelin is one of the most influential rock bands ever; I find it odd that people would say that their influence wasn't present in the 80s. On the contrary, for decades they were the most influential heavy metal band (a placethat Black Sabbath has since usurped). Aerosmith, Van Halen, Whitesnake, Kingdom Come, Jane's Addiction, Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Stone Temple Pilots are just bands off the top of my head that were influenced by Zeppelin. WesleyDodds 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Houses Of The Holy

I believe the following sentence is slightly incorrect.

"The striking orange album cover of "Houses of the Holy" features images of nude children (girls) climbing "

According to
Manning, Toby. "Broad Church", Q Led Zeppelin Special Edition, 2003.

The models for the cover were Stephan and Samantha Gates. So they are not both girls. Inaccurate information from Manning is not entirely out of the question, however.

I considered removing only the '(girls)' from this section of the article.

But I believe it may be better to change the text to read, "male and female children" with a citation of the above article.

- Rockthing 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can do it, do it. I would, but I don't have the proper references... Remember be bold Billvoltage 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:-) I did it. Still trying not to ruffle too many feathers as I've no history of contributing to pages that many have put a lot of time and effort into. Thanks for the reminder/encouragement - Rockthing 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hi - I was hoping fans of LZ could create a list of books about the band. I'd like to read more, and know some of the best and notable histories in publication. Thanks. --Stbalbach 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A "Satanistic" band??

Why is Led Zeppelin described as a "satanistic" band?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.81.25.154 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There are several reasons, all of them somewhat tongue-in-cheek. First the band participated with great humor in the great 'hidden backward recording' episodes, which some evangelists have cited as proof of the satanism of rock or pop music. Second, Founder Jimmy Page was for years obsessed with the legend of Aleister Crowley, remembered himself as 'the Beast'. Crowley likely had the same sense of humor that Zeppelin enjoyed, but was a devotee of freedom and excesses in his own life, one which rock music fame allowed Zeppelin to duplicate. Page later bought his castle and a large collection of Crowley's effects. The symbols used on Led Zeppelin IV are part of a Celtic and Crowley-inspired backdrop and imagery the band often used, and references are plentiful in Zeppelin lyric work. Some have argued that the band's use of such things cast a poor spell on them. So the satan thing continually had a way of recycling itself in the band's work and events. As they say, bad publicity is still publicity nonetheless. [end comment from other user]

Even so, I don't the band should be labelled as satanic, for a few reasons. First, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have both denied repeatedly that they were not practicing in the occult, and also that the lyrics do not have any satanic meaning. Second, and more importantly, there is almost no proof that they WERE satanic, even if they were hiding it, other than fans getting worked up over Stairway being played backwards. So, I feel that the discussion of their curiosity over the occult should be left to that section of the article, and certainly left out of the first line. It will give people the wrong impression, because the band is NOT focussed in any way on the Satanic. AC 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont care what anyone says, i've listened to stairway to heaven played backwards literally dozens of times and there are NO backwards lyrics. Also, Robert plant wrote most of the songs, not page. But most important of all, Crowley was NOT a satanist. he practiced magic but not satanic magic. Captanpluto123 03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Physical Graffiti also marked a change in Robert Plant's vocal sound. In 1974, after several years of near constant touring and all-out vocal performances, his vocal chords had been strained to a point where doctors told him to stop singing immediately or risk losing his voice altogether. By the end of Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy tour it was clear that he needed urgent medical attention, and he subsequently had several burst nodules removed from his vocal chords -- a simple procedure, but one that takes some time to heal. This is why some of the tracks on Physical Graffiti such as "Custard Pie" and "The Wanton Song" feature a slightly more raw voice than that exhibited on tracks which had been recorded well before his operation, such as "Night Flight" and "Down by the Seaside". After completely healing, his voice regained a tone similar to its original timbre, as can be heard on their next album, Presence."

I must say I've not read that before. Do we have any citations for this? --FrasierC 12:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the text above, and if anyone does have a source, it can be reverted. --FrasierC 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some key points on Led Zeppelin

First is Page's guitar, the focal point of the band. He was a very active studio musician hired by a slew of artists, including the Kinks. That's his solo on, 'All Day and All of The Night'. The Yardbirds had him on bass and rhythm guitar to Jeff Beck, himself a rock legend. The two knew each other for years, were very competitive in the 'Birds, and also when a young Zeppelin toured behind the Small Faces. Beck grudgingly considered Page better than himself. Several versions of a true super band nearly emerged in the late 60s, with Humble Pie's Steve Marriott or Steve Winwood on vocals, Beck and Page on guitar, The Who's John Entwhistle on bass and Keith Moon on drums. John Paul Jones and Robert Plant also participated in some of these sessions, which record company contracts largely kept from happening. A similar situation with members of Yes was also dashed in the 70s. What these could have been ... Keith Moon actually gave Page the idea for the band's name, a name made with generous humor. Page's layers of guitar work are a dominant feature on Led Zeppelin's early recording. Plant and Jones also used multiple tracks each. Hardly a true four-piece band, as some know them. Live, they were best on blues tunes they largely stole and put their names on. Plant, whose vocal is an enormous influence even today, almost got booted. Still very young when he joined Zeppelin, Plant came off as feminine in his dress and mannerisms early on. He had been rejected by the band Slade, whose songs were later used by Quiet Riot in the 80's. Plant could improvise and harmonize with the guitar, a fact Page much enjoyed. It was Jones, a studio guy who was a Page fan, who contacted Page to join, not the other way around. Jones played a number of instruments, helped arrange much of Zeppelin's material, and was often a co-producer, especially later on. 'In Thru The Out Door' is largely his album. He was the only band member not to become deranged by drug use, fame, or their behavioral byproducts. Drugs, alcohol and other excesses doomed the band's promising record label, which had a considerable roster of talent. But the intelligent Jones came away unscathed. The most effected of all was Bonham, a very original heavy drummer whose contribution to the band's sound was irreplaceable. A shouldery, jovial sort when he joined, Bonham came to be known as 'The Beast', an alcohol and drug-grogged monster of numerous social incidents and a penchant for violence. He died on his birthday at age 29, no one ever interceding to correct his spiraling path. Truthfully, Bonham, along with road manager Richard Cole and head manager Peter Grant, were thugs who should have been sent to prison even in Zeppelin's early years. Drug trafficking and battery were commonplace on Zeppelin tours. Bonham was even an attempted rapist. As great as their music was, there is no defense for their behavior on tour, which sadly influenced many other upcoming bands to duplicate their excesses. Verification of these facts are numerous, including the well-known tome 'Hammer of The Gods'. After only the Beatles, Zeppelin's only real all-time peer in rock music history is the Rolling Stones. It is impossible to imagine rock music without them. Their tours and recording inspired the creation of music equipment as well, much of it essential today. Their music and excesses will remain the stuff of legend for decades to come.

jerjets11@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerjets11 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Interesting Facts:

I believe that one of the well known 007 theme tunes is based on "kashmir" from the album "physical graffiti" - If this is valid and has not already been added, could you add it, please?

P.S. the rumors about the satanic lyrics are true - I played stairway to heaven - the original - bachwards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarzEz (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

realy? me too. It sounded like someone talking backwards. not like someone saying satanic verses forwords. Captanpluto123 03:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

you can go to <talkbackwards.com> for some info on the backwards stuff. somewhere else (i forget where) there was a lot of stuff on playing stairway and some other songs backward; it even had a transcript of stairway. if anyone is interested, let me know and i'll try and find it. :)Ledzepluvr 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Photos

If we are ever going to get this article to GA status or higher, we really need to preplace these images with free ones, and cut back on the amout. there are so many images currently in the article, it is pushing the article length and size, possibly slowing down page loads.  scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So, are we trying to get this to GA or FA? Just want to make sure for the League of Copyeditors. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)