Talk:Misty Mountain Hop

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misty Mountain Hop article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Led Zeppelin Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Led Zeppelin, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Led Zeppelin-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the members page, to join the project.Led ZeppelinWikipedia:WikiProject Led ZeppelinTemplate:WikiProject Led ZeppelinLed Zeppelin articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Trivia

I shuffled the trivia section around a bit, as it was simply ripped from the bottom of this page. Some of it was redundant and needed to be removed, and some of it needed to be integrated into the article.

By the way, does anybody actually know if there are Misty Mountains in Wales? --Rosencrantz1 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't start to play it really until late 1972, they only played it as an encore once in 1971 as far as we know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.17.27 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song or single?

@Ojorojo: I was scanning books and articles identifying "Misty Mountain Hop" as a "single", including this one. I couldn't find one such source, and that source identifies it as just B-side of "Black Dog". The French sleeve puts "Misty Mountain Hop" on bottom, indicating B-side, and "Black Dog" on top. I'm not confident that it's the appropriate way to identify the song. Are you sure that the song is known as a "single" without one reliable source identifying it as such? The articles and books may identify it as a song. (Contrast this with "I Will Survive" and "Unchained Melody", which were originally B-sides but became successful.) –George Ho (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Go back through the older discussions (at WT:SONGS or Template talk:Infobox song/single, I don't remember which) and you will see the consensus is to treat B-sides as "singles", because they were released on a single (a two-sided record with most often one song on each side). Keith Shadwick's excellent Led Zeppelin: The Story of a Band and Their Music 1968–1980 lists "Black Dog / Misty Mountain Hop" under "Singles". Of course, since Zeppelin were opposed to singles, it is not surprising to not to find much of anything about their singles during a search. Music writers, audiences, and the band were more focused on their albums. The image question has not been discussed yet, so wait until that has been resolved. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: I checked WT:SONGS, including #B-sides (2015), #Are B-sides considered singles? (2019). I don't see consensus agreeing that B-sides are singles unless very successful on charts, sales, and airplay. More likely, it's case-by-case basis. I even checked "infobox single" and "infobox song" talk pages, but I can conclude that the consensus didn't agree about B-sides (unless Beatles?). Of course, I must have missed something. If the consensus agreed that B-sides are "singles", would that be against common knowledge and established facts? BTW, Shadwick's source doesn't list the single as "double A-side". George Ho (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: Shadwick's book (ISBN 978-0879308711), which I searched throughout on Amazon, described "Misty Mountain Hop" as also a "song" for Song Remains the Same and other concerts. I saw the Singles list listing the song as (implicitly) secondary track. I also read page 162, describing the production of the song; nowhere does it refer the song as "single". Indeed, page 144 refers it as one of the "songs" of Led Zeppelin's fourth album. George Ho (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Template:Infobox single documentation and history was lost during the merger with infobox song. Sometime before the merger (2 yrs?), the practice of only using infobox single for A-sides (including double As) was changed to also use it for B-sides and was noted in the documentation. Some B-side infoboxes were updated and others were not by the time of the merger. It is still possible to find both in articles.

I don't see that Shadwick discusses the A-side "Black Dog" as a single either. Some writers might mention "single" in passing, but most focus on discussing songs instead. Remember, Zeppelin were publically opposed to singles and they make up only a small part of LZ's legacy. I don't know why you are spending so much time on something so unimportant to their history.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I tried getting into their music especially via Spotify recently. The only parts of Led Zeppelin I get into are their hit singles and songs receiving heavy radio airplay and sampled by later artists, like Kashmir (song), which became sampled into "Come with Me (Puff Daddy song)". Even their lyrics I couldn't get into (unless they either were hit singles, like Whole Lotta Love, or are played on radio, like Stairway to Heaven, whose lyrics I tried to understand and listen over and over). their music... Great teamwork and effort and well exceptional, but the heavily played songs and hit singles I get into the most. Even (I hate to admit) I like Puff Daddy's song more than Kashmir. I just happen to listen to other songs, especially from the '70s when disco was a big phenomenon (especially in America, well... until the Disco Demolition Night, but there was post-disco), and am too busy with so many other songs by other artists to get into Led Zeppelin.

Still, I really wish "single" shouldn't be used as a type entry, especially per sources and template:infobox song#type (currently discussed at WT:SONGS, where I see consensus keeping the instructions as-is but interpreted as case-by-case basis). George Ho (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'd like to see |type= done away with completely (last brought up here and completely ignored). There is far too much time and energy being put into these peripheral details, when the focus should be on the music itself. You may as well explain how your position is at odds with the current documentation/guidance at WT:SONGS, so people will know where you're coming from, rather than having to interpret it for themselves. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at WT:SONGS has as of now decided to not change the doc instructions but deal with songs/singles on a case-by-case basis. I don't know what the point to explain further my position being "at odds with the current documentation/guidance" is. I also don't know whether my position would influence them as much as or more than would be understand. Also, there are too many examples to cite, and not using songs as examples would complicate my way to explain my position, especially if I go too abstract to know what I'm talking about. George Ho (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, Ojorojo? Why not discuss the Led Zeppelin B-sides at WP:LED ZEPPELIN? I can post a notice at WT:SONGS for invite. I might add an RfC tag if that's necessary. I don't think I need to wait for a discussion at WT:SONGS to die down, do I? George Ho (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Sometimes it's difficult to see what your issue is. So rather than give bad advice, do what you feel is best. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]