Talk:Led Zeppelin II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this neccesarry?

"Heartbreaker and Living Loving Maid flow so naturally from one to the next that DJs (on independant or classic rock stations that still play such music) often play the two together. When listeners hear the first song end, they expect to hear the second begin, and not hearing it is too jarring."

It seems to be a personal opinion, and doesn't contribute to any factual information on the track listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.116.15 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Worthy addition

Is it worth adding a short part about the origins of Whole Lotta Love? I read in one of the books about Led Zeppelin that they came up with the riff during a ad-lib performance of Dazed and Confused. I have the performance around somewhere. Trampled 01:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to make an article about Whole Lotta Love and write it there, if you want my highly unprofessional opinion.--Methegreat 20:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs serious grammatical corrections, and reads a little to POV for Wikipedia. Jim62sch 02:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I made fairly thorough edits, added some of my own points, and decided to remove the clean-up box. Ccoll 07:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit seems to have brought back some of the POV. Ccoll 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this article somewhat extensively (a process that isn't finished); however, some sentences are ambiguous or might otherwise be improved which I have been unwilling to touch for fear of introducing factual errors (E.g.: "The album was written on tour during intermissions between shows, and each song was separately recorded, mixed, and produced at various studios across the UK and North America, resulting in a spontaneous and urgent sound". I don't know enough about the album's history to mess with this, but I'm sure people can see how the wording here is problematic.)

I also couldn't help but notice while editing style, grammar, and punctuation (rather than content), stuff like: "Led Zeppelin II developed their debut album's lyrical themes, surpassing it in acclaim and influence" (This is my phrasing, but I did not make the claim), whose appropriateness—especially because there is no accompanying citation—strikes me as questionable.)

If someone knowledgeable is willing to clean up issues like these, I will do what I can to make sure the whole article reads as smoothly as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A7592 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Say what?

"Commercially, Led Zeppelin II was the band's first album to hit #1 in the US knocking The Beatles' Abbey Road from the top spot."
The way that sentence is worded doesn't make much sense as it stands. Doesn't the author mean to say that it was the first British album to hit #1 in the U.S. since The Beatles' Abbey Road? Filter1987 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? It was their first album to hit #1 in the USA; and in so doing, the album it dislodged from the top spot was "Abbey Road". Fairly straightforward IMO, although the original sentence obviously could've used a comma.Vonbontee (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Blues-rock?

Why isn't blues-rock listed as a genre? I kept adding it but it kept getting deleted. I was told to get a consensus before editing it again. Whole Lotta Love, The Lemon Song, and Bring it On Home are all based off of classic blues songs; the latter two, as well as Heartbreaker and Moby Dick, follow blues progressions. There are also plenty of other blues elements in this album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutButterBlues (talk • contribs) 07:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - I agree that it should be added, and wonder why it hasn't been in all these years. "Blues-rock" is one of the genres in the infobox for the first LZ album, as well as in the infoxbox in the article about the band. MPFC1969 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a copy of the album that had 1970 as the release date (copyright 1970). This incorrect dating happens on a lot of recordings from the 1960s & 1970s. I posed the question in general on the sound recordings Wikipedia page too. The other possibility is that there were two different release dates between the UK & USA. Is it possible that the copy I had was a fluke? The Budzone guy 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

You should create a new section for this kind of stuff, because this has nothing to do with the content of this section. Not faulting you or anything, you seem like a new user, I'm just saying. And my copy of the album says 1969. But then again, it also doesn't say Led Zeppelin II on the sleeve, it just says Led Zeppelin, so yours, like mine, is probably just a misprint. Akdrummer75 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

" .. recognised by writers and music critics as one of the greatest and most influential rock albums ever recorded"

As elsewhere, this is simultaneously meaningless and uninformative yet horribly POV and boastful. The use of the word "recognised" takes it dangerously close to having WP endorse that subjective description. Isn't there a better and less hyperbolic way of acknowledging its status than this? See WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

thumbnail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.66.112 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sales figures

Can someone with access to historical charts info check these sales certifications (and ideally figures for all the LZ LPs)? They're beginning to 'feel' out of date. Chris W. (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin II is not a heavy metal album

This album was composed around 8 years before the first heavy sound. This is a big mistake. It is the main hard rock album very rich of element of blues sound. So it is an Hard Rock album and Rock Blues album. Surely not an Heavy Metal album. This I think offend a lot Jimmy Page and his wonderful sounds. I hope that the administers of this page will correct this lie as soon as possible.

Thank you George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.210.37.58 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, reliable sources indicate that it is one of the definitive heavy metal albums.--SabreBD (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I am changing the genres to Hard rock, blues rock, heavy metal, folk rock because the vast majority of songs on this album are either hard rock or blues rock. Heavy metal features prominently and 'Thank You' and 'Ramble On' are both folk rock.

Genre

I am changing the genres to Hard rock, blues rock, heavy metal, folk rock because the vast majority of songs on this album are either hard rock or blues rock. Heavy metal features prominently and 'Thank You' and 'Ramble On' are both folk rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.85.191 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre Poll

Poll

I would like to see what people think about removing folk rock from the genres list. As the user pointed out above, yes, there are two songs (Thank You and Ramble On) which have folk rock elements. However, I personally do not see this as enough to qualify being in the genre list. Physical Graffiti, after all, has two prog/art rock songs (Kashmir and In the Light). However, at the time of posting, the genre list for that album does not have prog/art rock. After all, the genre list on Wikipedia should be reflective of the overall sound, not all the songs on the album. Twyfan714 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this is that WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and that any change should be based on reliable sources, not our interpretation of the sounds of the album.--SabreBD (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

True, reliable sources would be better. However, I would argue that it is good to establish a consensus. The reason for this is that there are probably some sources out there that label a group, like AC/DC for example, as heavy metal. If I were to use those sources to back me up and change the genre, it would immediately be reverted because the consensus there is that they are not heavy metal. This is why I want to establish a consensus here first before changing it so it is less likely to be reverted. Perhaps poll is the wrong word to use. I just wanted to have a consensus. Twyfan714 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre in the infobox should be as general as possible; in the case of this album, 'Rock' is sufficient. Different styles can be expounded upon in the article body. Radiopathy •talk• 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, because having the genre be general means that there is less opportunity for genre wars to ensue. This is why I am sick and tired of every time I look at Zeppelin's albums, the genre box is different each time. Perhaps I should discuss this on their talk page. Maybe then these genre wars will finally stop! Twyfan714 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

On the album genres you get "heavy metal", but opening each song none of them have "heavy metal" in the genres. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiohsilva100 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Led Zeppelin II/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)