Talk:Physical Graffiti: Difference between revisions
Assessment: banner shell, Led Zeppelin, Albums, Rock music (Rater) |
|||
(27 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA|14:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)|topic=Albums|page=1|oldid=850382645}} |
|||
{{talk header}} |
{{talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Led Zeppelin |
{{WikiProject Led Zeppelin|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Albums}} |
|||
|class = B |
|||
|importance |
{{WikiProject Rock music|importance=Mid}} |
||
|also-led-zeppelin = Yes |
|||
|album = Yes |
|||
|arts = Yes |
|||
|album-importance = High |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Albums|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Rock music|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
== picture windows == |
|||
==Hard Rock== |
|||
Anyone who has actually listened to this band would not describe them as 'hard rock' |
|||
:{{xt|Images in the windows touched upon a set of American icons and a range of Hollywood ephemera. Pictures of W.C. Fields and Buzz Aldrin alternated with the snapshots of Led Zeppelin.}} |
|||
:you are demonstrably incorrect <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.125.110.223|69.125.110.223]] ([[User talk:69.125.110.223|talk]]) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The four shots of Queen Elizabeth's coronation (bottom right of each side of each sleeve), and the [[Lady with an Ermine]] – are they pictures of W.C.Fields or Buzz Aldrin, or do they touch upon American icons or Hollywood ephemera? – Seriously, the description could be improved/expanded. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 20:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Bron-Yr-Aur== |
|||
A google search comes up with 3 results for ''Bron Y' Raur'' and 2970 for ''Bron-Yr-Aur''. In [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=6:49:38|PM&sql=Aj9fyxql5ld0e All Music Guide] the song is spelled as ''Bron-Yr-Aur''. I also believe that I saw the name of the building after which the song was named spelled like this. [[User:Dhum Dhum|D.D.]] 23:50 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that's right. It's often mispelled, but I think "Bron-Yr-Aur" is correct. [[User:Tokerboy|Tokerboy]] |
|||
: And I can't find Fields anywhere! —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 20:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Yep definately "Bron-Yr-Aur", it was named after jimmy Pages' cottage in wales I believe (jeez, how do I know this stuff???) [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 00:04 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
==ominous dirge== |
|||
Sorry but you can't get away such blatant POV as ''and an ominous harbinger of the barrel-scraping yet to come'' or ''ominous dirge "Kashmir"''. I'm changing it.--[[User:Wobble|Alun]] 10:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
:I think I agree with you in the first case (which is POV, though the sentence left behind now makes little sense) but not the second case, which is descriptive writing and therefore not a bad thing. See if you are OK with the next edit. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 17:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I have just modified 3 external links on [[Physical Graffiti]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781380897 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
::The wiktionary definitions are: |
|||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/158693/review/5944206/physical_graffiti%3B |
|||
::'''dirge''': ''a mournful poem or piece of music composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person'' |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801142627/http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200 to http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200 |
|||
::'''ominous''': ''1.Harmful, having an injurious effect. 2.Of or pertaining to an omen or to omens; being or exhibiting an omen; significant; portentous; – formerly used both in a favorable and unfavorable sense; now chiefly in the latter; foreboding or foreshowing evil; inauspicious; as, an ominous dread.'' |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711073045/http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1975.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1975.php |
|||
::Is ''Kashmir'' composed for a dead person? Does the song pertain to omens? I'm not sure about either of these points. If I were asked I would say neither word is relevant, but I could be wrong. ''Dirge'' is often used as a pejorative term in my experience. Likewise ''ominous'' is usually used to ''forshadow evil'', as the definition says. I think both of these words could be interpreted as disparaging opinions about the music. Fine for a review, but not NPOV. Of course I may be showing POV myself in which case I'm wrong. What do you think?--[[User:Wobble|Alun]] 14:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
:::I had already taken out "dirge" and left in "ominous"; see what you think. I'm not too worried about this anyway, just having fun polishing a bit. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 00:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
::::Fair enough mate. I'm more concerned that the current wording (ominous) sounds too much like a negative opinion. I'll have a little think about it and see if I can come up with something different which we can agree on.--[[User:Wobble|Alun]] 08:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I know I'm about two years late to this discussion, but I just have to say that "ominous dirge" is a ''wonderfully'' evocative description of "Kashmir", and I don't think there's any way at all either word could legitimately be interpreted as expressing "disparaging opinions about the music"—indeed, if we were to argue that such phrasing was in any way POV (and I think doing so would be pretty silly), I think we'd have to argue that it's because the description expresses too ''positive'' an opinion about the song, in that it implies praise for the songwriters and the group for achieving the effect with it that they were obviously going for. [[User:Binabik80|Binabik80]] 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
==Dates== |
|||
Anybody know when the individual tracks were recorded? I'm fairly certain that Custard Pie, In My Time Of Dying, Trampled Underfoot, Kashmir, In The Light, Ten Years Gone, Wanton Song and Sick Again were from the 1974 sessions for this album, while the remaining tracks were outtakes from the III, IV and Houses of The Holy sessions. If anyone has more specific info, I think it would be a worthy addition to the article. [[User:Alcuin|Alcuin]] 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
== Greatest Zeppelin Album == |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Physical Graffiti]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=782082563 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
It may just be the fan in me, but I have to take issue with this: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402142207/http://ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums/3398 to http://ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums/3398 |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
:The album is considered by many fans to be Led Zeppelin`s greatest, showing them at the peak of their musical maturity. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
I have never known there to be a majority of Zeppelin aficionados who think that ''PG'' is the greatest Zeppelin album. Actually, I don't think there's a clear majority that favors ''any'' Zeppelin album over the others: they're all that good. Historically, it's come down to a runoff among I, II and IV, with HoH getting a few maverick votes, and ''then'' maybe PG gets some consideration in the debate. I'm not accusing anyone of weaseling here, but since, by way of comparison, there is pretty much no mention of "greatest album" status on the [[Zoso]] page, we have to be careful throwing that label around. |
|||
I love ''Physical Graffiti'', by the way. Just seems like an unlikely candidate is all. --[[User:Pastricide|Pastricide]] 22:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC) |
|||
To a certain extent, I agree with that statement. However, pound for pound there is no doubt this album is the best Led Zeppelin has to offer. It is a double album with no filler and defines the studio peak of the group over a 3 year period. [[Led Zeppelin IV]], as great as it is as a hard rock landmark, does not convey the mastery of the many genre's of music that PG does. Those genre's include: southern blues, hard rock, rockabilly, classical, country, and arabic influences. PG represents another landmark and dimension for Led Zeppelin, with it's mastery of musical range, creativity, and the atmospheric sound of such songs at [[The Rover (song)|The Rover]] or [[Kashmir (song)|Kashmir]]. If one is unwilling to use the term "greatest album" for PG, at the very least it should be called another landmark in music history. Consider the age of the band at the time of the release of PG and the fact that this was now their 6th album, to record another landmark was a rare accomplishment. PG marks the first supersonic/atmospheric mainstream recordings that I know of and they are brilliant. Generally speaking, landmark type albums like Boston's Boston, [[Jimi Hendrix]]'s [[Are You Experienced? (album)]], or [[Nevermind]] by [[Nirvana (band)|Nirvana]] are freshman or sophmore efforts. PG has stood the test of time and it is cleary the double album that all double album's should be measured by. It's sales are also remarkable considering the cost of a double album in the mid-1970's.--BigMikeyBoy 22:26, 8 September 2006 |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
The August 1995 Mojo ranked PG above any other Led Zep album, and included two quotes: "If I'm going to blow my trumpet about anything...then it would have to be that album" (Robert Plant) "It really allowed the listener to enter our world" (Jimmy Page). |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
BTW Bron Yr Aur is indeed correct. It's near Machynlleth, site of the Centre for Alternative Technology. Bron Yr Aur is Welsh for 'The golden breast' (as in, the breast of a hill - steady now!) It's pronounced Bron Ur Ire - that's Welsh for you! Hwyl! |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Physical Graffiti]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/808482763|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
[[User:Ewen|Ewen]] 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704205727/http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/04/16/physical_graffi_1.php to http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/04/16/physical_graffi_1.php |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
If anyone would like to discuss the merits of Physical Graffiti alongside thier other albums (or for that matter other artists) I would like to add a link to a discussion group as an external link to the Pyhsical Graffiti page... Would there be any objections to my doing this? |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
[[User: Ewanmathewson]] 15:10, Januray 17th (GMT) |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 03:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Subjective? == |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
This article is written from the viewpoint of a fan, not subjectivley like an Encyclopedia article should be. Please someone fix this. Not everyone thinks Zeppelin is the greatest, or that this is their best album. |
|||
Example: "each member of the band is at the top of his form" this is an opinion, prove this is true! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/69.167.253.131|69.167.253.131]] ([[User talk:69.167.253.131|talk]]) 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
Agreed, but there's no need to ask people to "please fix this" - feel free to dive right in. [[User:Bcarlson33|Bcarlson33]] 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have just modified one external link on [[Physical Graffiti]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813818622|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
==LZ vs the Rolling Stones & the Who== |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018005836/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=400 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=400 |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
The article states "most people polled today consider Led Zeppelin a greater rock band than either", then backs this up with a footnote citation. Only problem is that the citation has nothing to do with the assertion, but rather is providing substantiation for the previous sentence, which states that ''Rolling Stone'' said in a 1975 article that these were the three bands who could claim the title of world's greatest rock band at the moment. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
Even ''with'' citation though, the [[weasel words]] with which the sentence opens make it extremely suspicious—one would expect it to begin something like, "A poll of X-representative sample conducting by Y in 200Z ...", whereas the actual wording "Most people polled today" implies that many more people are polled far more regularly on the relative merits of the three bands' 1970s outputs than I would expect to be the case, and that these people put Led Zeppelin at the head of the other two far more consistently than I would think. Since it's therefore a weak statement that is completely unsourced in the article, I'm taking it out but encourage anyone with specific poll results to insert those results in its place. |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Was this ever released in CD format? == |
|||
{{Talk:Physical Graffiti/GA1}} |
|||
If so, then where are the Cd track listings? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.219.251.83|71.219.251.83]] ([[User talk:71.219.251.83|talk]]) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Fifth floor cropped out - wrong == |
|||
CD tracklisting is same as the record. Except, side one and two is disc 1, and side three and four are disc two. |
|||
One of the middle floors is cropped out, because the top (fourth on album cover) shows the fifth floor details. [[User:B137|B137]] ([[User talk:B137|talk]]) 18:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Anyone else find that the CD version (at least the original CDs, not the remasters) have the wrong times printed for several tracks? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.32.41.88|68.32.41.88]] ([[User talk:68.32.41.88|talk]]) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:It's not uncommon to find times incorrectly listed as well as spelling and grammatical errors on labels/covers. [[User:MegX|MegX]] ([[User talk:MegX|talk]]) 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== The new physical graffitti of wind power == |
|||
== The Winchester Cathedral choirmaster thing appears to be an overblown joke == |
|||
Whatever ethereal meaning Led Zeppelin gave to the title, it brings to mind giant wind turbines as a 3-D implementation of white spray paint in scenic areas. Urban blight is spreading everywhere. http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountains |
|||
Check out Dave Lewis's The 'Tight But Loose' Files (http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2vLCdjw9kgC) page 119, where John Paul Jones says the thing was a joke he made to a reporter. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.174.108.44|71.174.108.44]] ([[User talk:71.174.108.44|talk]]) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== When you edit, please get your facts straight about PG's album sales in the US!! == |
|||
==Incorrect source?== |
|||
Physical Grafitti has sold close to 17 million copies in the US and over 25 million worldwide since its release. This is an incontrovertible fact in terms of official tallies that has been verified by several sources including the RIAA. Someone keeps editing the article for the album stating that since it is a double album each copy has been counted twice.RIAA states that in order for a unit to be counted twice it has to be of more than 100 minutes in length. These guidelines were put in place in the late 70s but still cover discs released prior to the changes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.128.123.162|220.128.123.162]] ([[User talk:220.128.123.162|talk]]) 13:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
This "{{ex|As with previous sessions at Headley Grange, the informal atmosphere allowed the group to improvise and develop material while recording. Sometimes the group would rehearse or record a track several times, discuss what went wrong or what could be improved and then realised they had worked out an alternative arrangement for it which was better. Bonham was a driving force at the sessions, regularly suggesting ideas or the best ways in which a complicated arrangement could be played successfully. This led to him getting a lead songwriting credit on several tracks.}}" is sourced to ''Led Zeppelin: A Celebration'' By Dave Lewis ([https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SzgDAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Led+Zeppelin+:+A+Celebration#v=onepage&q=Led%20Zeppelin%20%3A%20A%20Celebration&f=false Google Books]). I've looked through it because I was curious about the statement that Bonham got a "lead songwriting credit on several tracks", as he only gets a shared credit on two tracks from the album sessions, and one shared credit on an outtake. The shared credits are shown in alphabetical order. While looking through for that detail, I note that the album is discussed in two places in the book, but in neither of those places could I see the suggestion that "Bonham was a driving force at the sessions". Either it's in the book and I couldn't find it, or the information comes from a different book. It sometimes happens when editing an article that citations get moved around. [[User:Ritchie333]], you are the main contributor, and [[User:FunkMonk]], you checked it over for the GA - have I missed the place in Lewis' book where it is mentioned, or should there be a different book cited as the source? [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The criteria that each disc counts as one unit toward certification was put in place in 1992, not in the late 1970s. In 1997, the criteria was changed for pre-1982 releases to eliminate the running time requirement. See [http://web.archive.org/web/20070101150005/www.riaa.com/gp/history/timeline.asp riaa.com]. [[User:Piriczki|Piriczki]] ([[User talk:Piriczki|talk]]) 15:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Ooh, quite a while ago, I'm not sure. But Ritchie would know. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 14:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::You are the one misinformed. There is no way this album has sold 8 million copies!! It was a far more successful album than 3 or In Through The Outdoor which sold not much less than 8 milion at 6 million each. If this is true then it would apply to other big name albums like The white album or The wall. You are wrong 100% and I would bet you a lot of money if there was some way to prove it either way beyond any doubt! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/61.220.207.153|61.220.207.153]] ([[User talk:61.220.207.153|talk]]) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Ah. Found it. I was looking in the wrong place. "{{ex|this session also reveals the influence John Bonham often had on the arranging of the material and how deserving his lead songwriting credit was on "In My Time Of Dying".}}". [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The running time exception does indeed apply to ''The White Album'' and ''The Wall'', as well as ''Physical Graffiti''. You'll notice the certification levels of all three albums doubled in 1997 after the criteria was changed. Also, it should come as no surprise that the sales totals for ''Led Zeppelin III'', ''Physical Graffiti'' and ''In Through the Out Door'' are roughly the same considering their similar chart history. ''Led Zeppelin III'' was #1 for 4 weeks and was on the chart for 42 weeks, ''Physical Graffiti'' was #1 for 6 weeks and was on the chart for 41 weeks, and ''In Through the Out Door'' was #1 for 7 weeks and was on the chart for 41 weeks. [[User:Piriczki|Piriczki]] ([[User talk:Piriczki|talk]]) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Where is the exact source from which we could settle this? The RIAA page has a lot of information, but I don't see any address of cases like this, specifically, where there is debate as to the actual number of copies sold. [[User:MXVN|MXVN]] ([[User talk:MXVN|talk]]) 02:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Release date == |
||
Seriously, it should go without saying to put the track listing on an album's page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/162.84.59.83|162.84.59.83]] ([[User talk:162.84.59.83|talk]]) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The 24 February release date seems very dubious for the US. |
|||
== What is the house numbers of the building? == |
|||
There are no mentions of in Billboard dated 1 March 1975 https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-01.pdf |
|||
There is an advertisement for it in the 8 March issue and a review https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-08.pdf |
|||
It finally charts for the first time in the week ending the 15th https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-15.pdf [[User:Snig27|Snig27]] ([[User talk:Snig27|talk]]) 11:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The album debuted on the [[Billboard Top LPs & Tape]] chart on March 15, for which the sales tracking week ended March 2. That implies it was released the week of February 23 – March 1. |
|||
: I'm confused, What is the house numbers of the building? The website of [http://physicalgraffitea.com/ Physical Graffitea] says that it is 83 St. Marks NY NY 10009, yet MANY websites say that it is 96 - 98 St. Marks Place? Which address is correct? [[User:Cutmynoseofftospitemyface|Cutmynoseofftospitemyface]] ([[User talk:Cutmynoseofftospitemyface|talk]]) 22:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:In [[Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 6#RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source?|a 2015 discussion]] regarding the release date of ''The Dark Side of the Moon'', {{u|Piriczki}} mentioned that the Billboard 200 was done based off of the sales tracked two weeks before (e.g., "The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4{{nbsp}}...") As I mentioned in [[Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#US release date|a discussion]] regarding the release date of ''Aftermath'', I have not been able to independently verify that this was the methodology, as I have not found any books which extensively discuss the history of ''Billboard'' chart compiling, but it lines up when comparing albums whose release we know with certainty – typically that is Beatles stuff, like ''Yesterday & Today'', which I mention in the ''Aftermath'' thread. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">[[User:Tkbrett|<b><span style="color: #000000;">Tkbrett</span></b>]][[User talk:Tkbrett|<span style="color: #FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]]</span> 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::There is more evidence 24 Feb is possibly wrong. |
|||
::Cashbox says on the week ending 22 Feb that you can expect it in two to three weeks: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-02-22.pdf |
|||
::There is no mention whatsoever of this album in Cashbox dated 1 March, none - the week of release apparently https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-03-01.pdf |
|||
::However in their issue of week ended 8 March they say that it had arrived in their office during the week https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-03-08.pdf |
|||
::https://www.ledzeppelin.com/event/february-24-1975 says 24 Feb but then shows a mock paper that has a date of 2 March. |
|||
::https://www.ledzeppelin.com/event/march-5-1975 has Danny Goldberg announcing that it was certified gold from sales on the day of ship. RIAA says the day it was certifid was actually the 6th https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Led+zeppelin+#search_section One doubts they would wait 9 days to announce that. Maybe, but unlikely. |
|||
::In the UK it charted on 15 March https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/physical%20graffiti/ There are no mentions of it at all in Record Mirror until that week. None. A new LZ album would garner some mention in the UK's biggest pop mag. |
|||
::Chart lag in the UK based on a credible date. Sgt Pepper, released 26 May, charted 3 June https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/sgt-pepper's-lonely-hearts-club-band/ so a week after release. It was that in 1967 and is still that. Is there any evidence it was delayed until after US release in the UK? I've never seen any. |
|||
::Surely it's not credible that Billboard and Cashbox would ignore a record like this in their issues created on the very week Wiki currently claims but that's what a release date of 24 would have us believe. I do understand that there was a lag in the 60s but have always understood that was tightened in the 70s as albums mattered more. |
|||
::What seems to have happened is it was scheduled and was pushed back. That 22 Feb Cashbox says: |
|||
::Eric Clapton's forthcoming LP which Atlantic is hoping to get ready for March release will be titled "There's One In Every Crowd." Don't be surprised to find the release date getting pushed back a month. '''Speaking of which, Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffiti" is ready cover -wise, but is being re -mastered. Expect it in two or three weeks''' |
|||
::I guess we await further evidence but there seems to a lot that says early March. [[User:Snig27|Snig27]] ([[User talk:Snig27|talk]]) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::You are incorrect about ''Sgt. Pepper''. For one, how the UK Official Chart (then ''[[Record Retailer]]'') compiled its data has nothing to do with ''Billboard''. Second, ''Sgt. Pepper'' debuted on the ''Billboard'' Top LPs chart on June 24, for which the sales tracking week ended June 11. The album came out in the US nine days earlier, on June 2, or twenty-three days before its chart debut in the US. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">[[User:Tkbrett|<b><span style="color: #000000;">Tkbrett</span></b>]][[User talk:Tkbrett|<span style="color: #FF0000;"> (✉)</span>]]</span> 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 20:23, 12 January 2024
Physical Graffiti has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 15, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physical Graffiti article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
picture windows
[edit]- Images in the windows touched upon a set of American icons and a range of Hollywood ephemera. Pictures of W.C. Fields and Buzz Aldrin alternated with the snapshots of Led Zeppelin.
The four shots of Queen Elizabeth's coronation (bottom right of each side of each sleeve), and the Lady with an Ermine – are they pictures of W.C.Fields or Buzz Aldrin, or do they touch upon American icons or Hollywood ephemera? – Seriously, the description could be improved/expanded. —Tamfang (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- And I can't find Fields anywhere! —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Physical Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/158693/review/5944206/physical_graffiti%3B
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801142627/http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200 to http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711073045/http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1975.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1975.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Physical Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402142207/http://ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums/3398 to http://ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums/3398
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Physical Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704205727/http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/04/16/physical_graffi_1.php to http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/04/16/physical_graffi_1.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Physical Graffiti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018005836/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=400 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=400
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Physical Graffiti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hell yeah! Might take some time before I can review, but I just wanted to grab it while I could... FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
... yup, before you get trampled under foot by someone else ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I recently mixed a guitar and drum track together I and a friend had recorded of the beginning of In My Time of Dying when were teenagers, brings back nice memories. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- " where they had previously recorded their untitled fourth album" Might be good to name the band here, the first time it can be mentioned after the intro?
- I've copyedited this slightly, to fix the problem Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- In some other Led Zep album articles, the deluxe edition tracks are "hatted". Any reason for the inconsistency?
- Not a clue - I tend not to touch these things because usually another experienced editor has done this and I concentrate on prose and sources ;-) However, Presence (album) and Houses of the Holy both have the deluxe edition tracks unhatted, so let's go with that. The recent reissues have been documented in the press as being significant, so that makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if the tracks with alternate names listed under deluxe edition really need links, considering that the same tracks are already linked in the standard track list.
- No, I don't think so, so I've unlinked them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Likewise, I don't think those titles need to be linked in the "reissues" section. Kashmir itself isn't even linked at first mention under "recording", for example.
- I don't think we need to mention the track names in the "reissues" section, the table below should be sufficient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- The first Australian chart position needs a citation.
- Good catch, have tagged "citation needed" while I go and look for one Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I can't find a source for this anywhere, it's likely to be true but it's not verifiable, and if the main sources don't include it (they only concentrate on UK and US chart places), it probably doesn't matter too much to leave it out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch, have tagged "citation needed" while I go and look for one Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have often wondered why Houses of the Holy wasn't used on the album of the same name, I think this article might be a good place to explain that?
- I think it's just a simple matter of time available on an LP, so something had to give. As it was all mixed and required no further work, it was an obvious choice to use for Physical Graffiti I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- "The track is co-credited to credited to "Mrs. Valens,"" Two issues here, seems one "credited" should be cut, and that you should place the last quotation mark before the comma?
- D'oh, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- "Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, Marcel Duchamp" Why not linked? And I wonder if Roy Harper mentioned here is Roy Harper (singer), and should then be linked?
- Didn't do this bit, but linked
- "The group's entire back catalogue also re-entered the charts" and "Shortly after its release, all previous Led Zeppelin albums simultaneously re-entered the top-200 album chart" maybe consolidate these two largely identical statements?
- "which has made it 16 times platinum as it is a double album" Not sure I understand the correlation, and the source used doesn't explain.
- Not sure either, so I trimmed it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- "has since said it his favourite" Said it is?
- "an inverted color version" I assume this article was meant to be written in UK English? This is an issue in the reissue section of all the Zep album articles...
- Didn't write this bit, yet it should be BE (my spellchecker only seems to highlight prose I've actually edited). Anyway, fixed and linked to complementary colors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think the intro needs a bit on the styles on the album.
- I've dropped a sentence in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
- I wonder if that one citation is needed in the intro?
- No, not anymore, that's covered in the body now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- "a five-night residency at Earl's Court, London" and "a three-night residency at Earl's Court, London" contradicts itself.
- It was originally three, just extended to five. In the body, I've changed it to "series of shows" as it explains why more gigs were added. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's about it, good to see the Led Zeppelin discography finally getting the treatment. I reviewed the Led Zeppelin FAC years ago[1], still disappointed it didn't get anywhere...
- Most of the album articles are in reasonable shape; it just needs somebody to give it that extra push to get it up to a higher standard. Anyway, I think I've got all of those things, anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, I added a missing space, but it looks fine to me now, so I'll pass, while hoping to see more from the discography at GAN! FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, FunkMonk! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, I added a missing space, but it looks fine to me now, so I'll pass, while hoping to see more from the discography at GAN! FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the album articles are in reasonable shape; it just needs somebody to give it that extra push to get it up to a higher standard. Anyway, I think I've got all of those things, anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Fifth floor cropped out - wrong
[edit]One of the middle floors is cropped out, because the top (fourth on album cover) shows the fifth floor details. B137 (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The new physical graffitti of wind power
[edit]Whatever ethereal meaning Led Zeppelin gave to the title, it brings to mind giant wind turbines as a 3-D implementation of white spray paint in scenic areas. Urban blight is spreading everywhere. http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountains
Incorrect source?
[edit]This "As with previous sessions at Headley Grange, the informal atmosphere allowed the group to improvise and develop material while recording. Sometimes the group would rehearse or record a track several times, discuss what went wrong or what could be improved and then realised they had worked out an alternative arrangement for it which was better. Bonham was a driving force at the sessions, regularly suggesting ideas or the best ways in which a complicated arrangement could be played successfully. This led to him getting a lead songwriting credit on several tracks." is sourced to Led Zeppelin: A Celebration By Dave Lewis (Google Books). I've looked through it because I was curious about the statement that Bonham got a "lead songwriting credit on several tracks", as he only gets a shared credit on two tracks from the album sessions, and one shared credit on an outtake. The shared credits are shown in alphabetical order. While looking through for that detail, I note that the album is discussed in two places in the book, but in neither of those places could I see the suggestion that "Bonham was a driving force at the sessions". Either it's in the book and I couldn't find it, or the information comes from a different book. It sometimes happens when editing an article that citations get moved around. User:Ritchie333, you are the main contributor, and User:FunkMonk, you checked it over for the GA - have I missed the place in Lewis' book where it is mentioned, or should there be a different book cited as the source? SilkTork (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ooh, quite a while ago, I'm not sure. But Ritchie would know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. Found it. I was looking in the wrong place. "this session also reveals the influence John Bonham often had on the arranging of the material and how deserving his lead songwriting credit was on "In My Time Of Dying".". SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Release date
[edit]The 24 February release date seems very dubious for the US. There are no mentions of in Billboard dated 1 March 1975 https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-01.pdf There is an advertisement for it in the 8 March issue and a review https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-08.pdf It finally charts for the first time in the week ending the 15th https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/70s/1975/Billboard%201975-03-15.pdf Snig27 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- The album debuted on the Billboard Top LPs & Tape chart on March 15, for which the sales tracking week ended March 2. That implies it was released the week of February 23 – March 1.
- In a 2015 discussion regarding the release date of The Dark Side of the Moon, Piriczki mentioned that the Billboard 200 was done based off of the sales tracked two weeks before (e.g., "The album debuted on the Billboard 200 chart March 17, 1973 for which the sales tracking week ended March 4 ...") As I mentioned in a discussion regarding the release date of Aftermath, I have not been able to independently verify that this was the methodology, as I have not found any books which extensively discuss the history of Billboard chart compiling, but it lines up when comparing albums whose release we know with certainty – typically that is Beatles stuff, like Yesterday & Today, which I mention in the Aftermath thread. Tkbrett (✉) 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is more evidence 24 Feb is possibly wrong.
- Cashbox says on the week ending 22 Feb that you can expect it in two to three weeks: https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-02-22.pdf
- There is no mention whatsoever of this album in Cashbox dated 1 March, none - the week of release apparently https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-03-01.pdf
- However in their issue of week ended 8 March they say that it had arrived in their office during the week https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1975/CB-1975-03-08.pdf
- https://www.ledzeppelin.com/event/february-24-1975 says 24 Feb but then shows a mock paper that has a date of 2 March.
- https://www.ledzeppelin.com/event/march-5-1975 has Danny Goldberg announcing that it was certified gold from sales on the day of ship. RIAA says the day it was certifid was actually the 6th https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Led+zeppelin+#search_section One doubts they would wait 9 days to announce that. Maybe, but unlikely.
- In the UK it charted on 15 March https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/physical%20graffiti/ There are no mentions of it at all in Record Mirror until that week. None. A new LZ album would garner some mention in the UK's biggest pop mag.
- Chart lag in the UK based on a credible date. Sgt Pepper, released 26 May, charted 3 June https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/sgt-pepper's-lonely-hearts-club-band/ so a week after release. It was that in 1967 and is still that. Is there any evidence it was delayed until after US release in the UK? I've never seen any.
- Surely it's not credible that Billboard and Cashbox would ignore a record like this in their issues created on the very week Wiki currently claims but that's what a release date of 24 would have us believe. I do understand that there was a lag in the 60s but have always understood that was tightened in the 70s as albums mattered more.
- What seems to have happened is it was scheduled and was pushed back. That 22 Feb Cashbox says:
- Eric Clapton's forthcoming LP which Atlantic is hoping to get ready for March release will be titled "There's One In Every Crowd." Don't be surprised to find the release date getting pushed back a month. Speaking of which, Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffiti" is ready cover -wise, but is being re -mastered. Expect it in two or three weeks
- I guess we await further evidence but there seems to a lot that says early March. Snig27 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are incorrect about Sgt. Pepper. For one, how the UK Official Chart (then Record Retailer) compiled its data has nothing to do with Billboard. Second, Sgt. Pepper debuted on the Billboard Top LPs chart on June 24, for which the sales tracking week ended June 11. The album came out in the US nine days earlier, on June 2, or twenty-three days before its chart debut in the US. Tkbrett (✉) 15:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)