h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Led Zeppelin - The Albums - A602236
Author: Dan - U119260

I started writing this article (A602236) about Led Zeppelin's albums ages and ages ago and never quite finished it. Now they've released the new live CD and DVD sets I got a little burst of inspiration and finished it off. It's meant to compliment the existing guide entry on Led Zeppelin (A593101) by giving a little more detail about the actual music. Please let me know what you think! Thanks...

Wow. Not a single reply or comment. Oh well.

This is a great entry about Led Zep's albums. Since there is already an Edited Entry about the band itself, do you think it is wise to include so much in your entry?

I am unsure about your claim 'the 2nd most successfull band'. These records change regularly, but I thought Abba were the most successful and the Beatles the 2nd most successful. I also think that Pink Floyd, U2 and the Spice Girls are probably somewhere up near the top.

That depends on whether you measure success by album sales or chart success. In terms of album sales, Led Zeppelin are second only to the Rolling Stones, with the Beatles in third. The Fab Four head the list for chart success, with an odd-looking top ten which includes Westlife and Boney M.

Not surprisingly, most people who take their music seriously tend to adopt the former method. There's never any accounting for the tastes of the record-buying public.

As regards the entry - it certainly is a labour of love, but I would agree with Gnomon that any biographical notes about the band should be removed or severely trimmed at the least, to avoid clashing with the existing entry. The general comments on the albums look OK, but they are somehow a bit cramped - it might be worth tweaking the ML to make the whole thing look a bit nicer. Make sure you use the ... tags wherever possible to keep stuff spaced out, and maybe abandon the bold headings in favour of just a tracklist and a pargraph-worth of comments. Just a suggestion, mind you.

B

If success is judged on the basis of album sales, then there should be a footnote to explain that.

Thanks for your comments (I was getting worried!)

I certainly need to add a footnote to the "second most successful band in history" comment - I think that when I wrote that, getting on for two years ago, I'd just seen a list from Billboard or somewhere that showed Led Zep as second only to The Beatles in worldwide album sales. Chart positions, and certainly singles charts, didn't really come into it. They still hold some attendance records for live shows I believe. I'll have to check this out and ammend the entry.

As for the biographical detail... well, I thought it was just an introduction explaining the origins of the band and their name - it's not meant to conflict with the existing entry, but I'll have a think about reducing it a bit.

Will also space the entry out a little.

Cheers again...

Right, I've amended the claims of success, added a footnote and spaced out the entries a bit.

I'm still not sure about the introduction. I know that two people have said it should go, but it's specifically an explanation of the band's origins and it stops at the point where they took the name 'Led Zeppelin'. If this is considered really unnecessary then I'll chop it, but I'm quite keen on keeping the overall completeness of the entry, rather than having it as uniquely and exclusively a list of the albums.

What do you think?

There's certainly no harm in providing a little context for the list of albums. Lists can appear a bit offputting, so there's no harm in setting the stage by telling us a little about the band first.

Is it a goer then, this article?

I'd say so. But you have to leave it in Peer Review for a week before it can be picked, to give people a chance to have a look at it. Then a scout has to like it and pick it. I'd say this is good enough to be picked very quickly, but it depends on the scouts.

Thanks Gnomon, I haven't submitted an H2G2 article for over two years so I'm a bit out of touch with the routine. (Then I submitted two this week, just to make up for lost time...)

Yes, I know that feeling.

*wanders off to check on his 4 entries in PR*

B

I really like this. Heartfelt, well-balanced and an all round good read.

Small point on the opening sentence: <> - I think that "they" in there can safely go.

And, if we're being really pedantic, the remixed Whole Lotta Love that TOTP uses for its theme music was released in 1997, and credited to Led Zeppelin, the DJ - with rare musical conscience - preferring not to take any credit.

B

I disagree with Dr Funderlik. It is essential that the word 'they' remains in that sentence in order to make it grammatically correct.

Brilliant article. Good, complete. Several (illegally produced) live albums or compilations are not included in the article but -since there appears to be an almost infinite number of them- this is correct!

Brilliant!

You could well be right, Gnomon. But I am still a bit confused, since what I quoted as the first sentence now doesn't even appear to me to be a sentence at all.

<>

I mean, "One of the.." begins with a capital O. But then the bit before it "LED ZEPPELIN - " is all capitals and doesn't have a full stop - so I am not sure what that bit is, exactly, in terms of sentences. This could well be a proper grammatical construction, however, and if it is then I defer to those with more knowledge then myself.

Perhaps what I meant to say was that this whole.. er.. fragment..? would be better phrased if the subject, "Led Zeppelin" was moved to the place now inhabited by 'they', leaving "One" to open the whole thing as the first word.

It is a small point, but one I fear I must clarify.

I don't know the name for this grammatical construction but it is valid. It is much beloved of documentary writers:

London. Standing astride the Thames river, this city embodies the quintessential England.

The word London is really a separate sentence and I have shown it here with a full stop, but the author of this entry has chosen a dash to separate it from the rest. I'd say either form is valid.

Thanks so much for these replies. Yes, the opening is a bit of a documentary-style, dramatic cliche I suppose. Say it in a deep, gravelly voice and you should get the gist. Maybe editors will deal with that sort of thing?

The entry is meant to cover the official releases only. As you say, there are thousands of bootlegs - some very well known, some really, really poor - so I wouldn't know where to start on them really.

Thanks again...

You'll have to rewrite the footnote: "I have been unable to find consistent ...". Never admit you don't know something. Cover it up. Present the facts you do know and gloss over the ones you don't know.

Any way, it is against the Editorial Guidelines to put "I" into the entry, even in a footnote.