Talk:Physical Graffiti

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

And I can't find Fields anywhere! —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

... yup, before you get trampled under foot by someone else ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • " 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "has since said it his favourite" Said it is?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, FunkMonk! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ooh, quite a while ago, I'm not sure. But Ritchie would know. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Graffiti&oldid=1195211411"