Talk:Whole Lotta Love

A 'rewrite'?

As loved as this song may be by Zeppelin notalgists, it was a ripoff, not a rewrite as the article suggests ('The song was a rewrite of the Willie Dixon song "You Need Love"'). This line should be changed, it's highly misinforming. It is even more so misleading since the article mentions that the band was succesfully sued by Willie Dixon for copyright infringement. The band was sued because they didn't give credit to Mr Dixon, not because they simply 'rewrote' it. --Bentonia School 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one's raised any flags against me, I've gone ahead and changed the article from saying "a rewrite" to "essentially a cover". Thoughts? --Bentonia School 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's neither a cover nor a rewrite nor a completely original song. The music is original (and completely independent from Willie Dixon's song -- Page wrote it long before Plant added the lyrics). It's hard to call something a "cover" when 3/4ths of the songwriters didn't know what they were covering. ScottSwan 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone else hear someone scream a high-pitched, "Die!" at 3:04-3:05, right as the guitar solo starts? It blends in with the guitar part, but I'm almost positive I'm hearing it. It seems to be coming out of the left speaker only. This is a version from the Led Zeppelin Complete Studio Recordings box set, but I'm sure it's there on the original version as well. -Dan 6/29/07

No you're correct - it's Plant on the lead vox track - he sings "Oh my my my..." See this :

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-ii-1988-technidisc-cd-with-different-mastering.768690/page-3#post-19345799 Wamnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence that the Willie Dixon song was a later influence on "Custard Pie." The statement is wrong; the lyrics to "Custard Pie" quote from Bukka White's "Bring 'Em on Down," which also appear in "Hats off to (Roy) Harper." DMO 9/23/07.

This isn't a Led Zeppelin song, or a Willie Dixon song. It's originally by Muddy Waters, this article even mentions that he recorded it in 1962! But it glosses over that and says it's a Led Zeppelin song. That's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.115.58 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're ALL wrong. It is not a cover, it is not a rewrite, and it is not a rip-off. The lyrics are a rip-off, yes - but the music is certainly not. Apart from a few similarities in the chorus (minor, but there) the music is totally different from Dixons' song, and there's so much different between the two songs that claiming anything other than it being inspired slightly by Dixons' song makes you look like a bit of an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.79.114 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not exactly correct that Led Zeppelin wrote "Whole Lotta Love" even though they claimed themselves as the song author in their original album. Willie Dixon wrote the lyrics. The song was originally entitled "You Need Love" was put out by Muddy Waters in 1962. "You Need Loving" was put out by The Small Faces in 1966. Led Zeppelin recorded "Whole Lotta Love" in 1969.

It's no surprise that Led Zeppelin found a lot of inspiration in American blues. If a person would trace the history and evolution of one of Led Zep's biggest hits, "Whole Lotta Love" back...it's roots are with Muddy Waters. Willie Dixon wrote the lyrics and sued Led Zeppelin in 1985. They settled out of court. On the CD version of the song, Willie Dixon was given his due as the person who wrote the song.

Not only did Led Zeppelin "borrow" the song from Willie, they "borrowed" the vocal styling of the song from Steve Marriott of The Small Faces, who recorded the song four years earlier than Led Zeppelin. -Greg, 04-20-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.106.127 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true; and Marriott "borrowed" the selfsame Willie Dixon lyrics for "You Need Loving" - plus a few from Chris Kenner's "Land of 1000 Dances" to boot! Arguably, Dixon should more rightly have sued The Small Faces instead, but the resultant payoff based on record sales would've been infinitely more meagre. None of which is to claim that Dixon didn't have grounds to sue, but the stolen/"borrowed" bits are purely vocal/lyrical. Minus the vocal track, "Whole Lotta Love" would sound pretty original. (And I'm sorry, I know this isn't the proper forum for this discussion, but the door was opened...)Vonbontee (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The article says they settled in 1985, cited with a book. However, episode #6214 of Jeopardy (Thursday, 9/29/2011) has a clue that says 'Willie Dixon had the blues, saying this hard rock group didn't credit him for "Whole Lotta Love"; the sides settled in 1987". Mattack (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight... Willie Dixon sued them over the lyrics 'way down inside you need love'?! No one has a right to patent those words. That's like patenting 'I love you'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.5.116 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On The Run

Should it be noted that the Pink Floyd song On The Run was sampled into the song (around the 3:16 mark)? Gcrossan_(Talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

reference?? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't any references (thats why i dint put it in the article), was just listening to the song and recognised the segment Gcrossan_(Talk) 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Then that would be a WP:ATT violation. No original research allowed. Wikipedia has too much already. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be really weird if it was, seeing as On the Run was released nearly 4 years later. Adrianrorheim (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mystery Train

The article states the following at the moment:

"Lyrics from "Mystery Train," written by Junior Parker and Sam Phillips (and recorded by Elvis Presley), also appear during the instrumental break."

Now, for the life of me I cant find any references to the lyrics of Mystery Train within Whole Lotta Love. Can this either be referenced for removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.249.100 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't hear it on the original album, but it's definitely there in the BBC Sessions version (the regular song, not the medley). Starting around 2:15 or 2:20 there's a fairly clear "train I ride, sixteen coaches long," and he goes through the rest of that verse. If it helps, I never noticed this myself until maybe a week ago, and I've listened to this CD countless times (though on the other hand I was never that familiar with Mystery Train until more recently). Psychojosh13 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Theremin Solo?

It currently says there is a "theremin solo" in the jazzy/psychedelic interlude... I always assumed it was just Jimmy playing around with his guitar? Adrianrorheim (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"The last song..."

" It is also the last track the band ever played as whole" - this statement doesn't make much sense: does it mean that it was the last song the band ever performed, at their last ever gig? And if so, was that before they split up, or at their reunion gig? I'm afraid I'm not conversant enough with their set-lists to re-write the sentence Dom Kaos (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley?

Should it be mentioned that Singer/songwriter Jeff Buckley was reported to have sang the words to the song as he was swimming moments before vanishing under the water? The song being related to a famous singers death could possibly be worth mentioning.

Knebworth 1979 jam

In this concert, Page plays some riffs during the central jam. Does somebody know if this were recorded during Page's solo career or as Led Zeppelijn outtakes?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.54.120 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Backwards Echo

The interview with Jimmy Page in the Wall St Journal this week (http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-making-of-led-zeppelins-whole-lotta-love-1401390281?mod=trending_now_5&nan_pid=1804442923) suggests that the reverse echo production technique mentioned in this article was really the crosstalk from a previously recorded vocal take, which is actually mentioned earlier in this page. I suggest deleting that line about the reverse echo technique. Any objections? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Presumably these refer to the same part of the song (as described in detail by Kramer)? If so, then yes, they seem to contradict each other. Can any other source be found for backwards echo here? If not, and it's certain that Dave Lewis is not referring to another part of the song (how can he be?), they I would agree with the deletion. I don't see any direct source at Reverse echo for its use in this song. I've always thought personally that it sounded like bleed through. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If they mean the "you need..." vocal "pre echo" - that appears to me to actually be a deleted rough vox that bled into the dive/theremin-fluff/lead guit track. I explain it here:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-ii-1988-technidisc-cd-with-different-mastering.768690/page-3#post-19307732

You can see that 2018 Rhino Rough Mix release (which is supposedly a mix cut the night of tracking) lines up with track02 of the multitrack, which is the dive/fluff-theremin/lead guitar track

You can also see it on my VU video here: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/led-zeppelin-ii-1988-technidisc-cd-with-different-mastering.768690/#post-19283152 Wamnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Also note - at the "You Need...." Page and Kramer must have razor bladed that. This is confirmed with the 2018 Rhino Rough mix - the "Ta-Da" is actually about 3 beats further - it matches an unused vox and the scratch vox on the Rhino Rough mix. Wamnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've taken what I put on Steve Hoffman's page and condensed it here - http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/remixoflz.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.42.67 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You Need Love expansion

Mlpearc, my edits provide useful information about the song's background. It is well-documented that it is based on earlier songs. Check out some song FAs or GAs – many include the artist's inspiration and influence in their songs. You may not like some of the material, but to make a wholesale revert is overreaching. You've reverted reliably sourced material if favor of unreferenced OR ("Robert Plant, a huge fan of blues and soul singers, regularly quoted other artists' songs, especially live", "The Small Faces were never sued by Dixon, even though "You Need Loving" still only credits Ronnie Lane and Steve Marriott" – what bearing does this have?) Also, the "Released" parameter should use Template:Start date, the use of " for inches is not a recommended abbreviation according to the MOS. There IS a track listing at the bottom, why have it again in the infobox? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but your addition Chess songwriter and arranger Willie Dixon, has nothing to do with Whole Lotta Love. If you want to post this information, put it in the Willie Dixon article where it belongs. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The previous version had "written for him by peer Willie Dixon". Is that at all useful? Leave it out if you want, but it better describes their relationship. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

The song was notoriously banned by the BCC because of Plant's moaning. Ironically an instrumental version was later used as the theme tune for Top of the Pops pop-pickers. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Covers/renditions

Synthwave.94, other interested editors: Please explain what wording in WP:SONGCOVER, MOS:OVERSECTION, and MOS:NO-TABLES indicates that the sourcing/layout/format in this version[1] is "correct", while this[2] supposedly isn't. The relevant guidance/guidelines are as follows:

SONGCOVER

Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

For lists of recordings by date, use an instance of {{{date}}}: for each entry; see WP:DATELIST.

OVERSECTION

Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead.

NO-TABLES

If a list is simple, it is generally better to use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats instead of a table. Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read.

—Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your version is definitly incorrect, as separated sections and chart tables for each cover are almost always use in song articles to prove these covers are actually notable and do meet WP:SONGCOVER. You can easily find examples of what I'm saying, as in articles such as "Georgia on My Mind", "I Want Candy", "Tainted Love", or even "Stand by Me", where a "chart section was specifically created at the bottom of the page. I agree, however, that each subsection should not be limited to a simple sentence, and I therefore added extra sources for each cover. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

How does using separate sections and tables prove they are notable and meet SONGCOVER? You are reading much more into SONGCOVER than what is actually there (see the above subsection "SONGCOVER" for the full text): separate sections and chart tables are not even mentioned nor implied, while "lists" are specifically noted. On the other hand, OVERSECTION clearly advises against short sections. The "King Curtis and the Kingpins version" contains two sentences, and "Tina Turner version" has only one. The only reason Goldbug has four and CCS has five sentences is that they repeat the chart info that is already in the tables. There is no need to duplicate the info in tables, especially when they are so close to the sentences that are showing it.

There are plenty of examples of bad practices in WP articles; the idea that they provide justification for each cover having a separate section is ridiculous. Separate sections/subsections for other renditions are used in song articles when there is sufficient prose to justify them (see for example the GAs "Baby, Please Don't Go", "Call It Stormy Monday (But Tuesday Is Just as Bad)", "Little Red Rooster", "Train Kept A-Rollin'", "Who Do You Love?"). Otherwise, they shouldn't be used.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I can also give you an example of a GA with chart table, such as "Let's All Chant", so your opinion doesn't work. Chart tables are perfectly permitted and I never read anywhere that they should be removed. A separate section is, in fact, the best way to solve the issue. Other infos about live performances are mostly unsourced and were therefore removed from the article. Finally, you're misusing WP:BRD, as I reverted you in the first place back in June. It's therefore up to you to follow the BRD cycle and to use the talk page before messing up the article again. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The article you've linked has numerous MOS problems, including use of [ " ] for inches (see WP:UNITSYMBOLS), tables that don't follow MOS:NO-TABLES or WP:ACCESSIBILITY, "Appearances" section that doesn't follow WP:SONGTRIVIA or WP:SONGCOVER, etc. Again, examples of bad practices are easy to find. There is no justification for a separate section for tables which duplicate information already contained in prose in the prior section. I'll add more sources for the "Performances" section, but stop edit warring. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You started edit warring in the first place, and all the GAs you're referring to are articles you worked on. Your opinion is biased and I don't see why using chart tables is a "bad practice" in itself. Again, you can easily find numerous articles with separated sections for each notable cover and chart tables to prove they meet WP:SONGCOVER. MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:NO-TABLES don't even say chart tables should be removed in such cases, so you're reading much more than these guidelines say. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

An RfC has been started at WT:SONGS#RfC regarding WP:SONGCOVER. BTW, you've reverted four times in the last few hours. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The RfC has been open for over two weeks and no one supports the idea that separate section are needed. Synthwave.94 has not justified their position nor even participated in the RfC, so the redundant "Charts" section should be removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The two versions are both allowable. I don't like seeing the CCS chart attainments reduced to a footnote in this version. It would be better to tell the reader explicitly. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding separate subsections only for tables to repeat information that is already in prose appears contrary to WP:OVERSECTION and MOS:NO-TABLES. The additional CCS chart numbers were relocated to an efn following the discussion in the "CCS: RAK 104 (1970)" section below (last comments on 25 September), but now have been moved back. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

King Curtis: ATCO 45-6779 / 45-2690

Secondhandsongs.com, discogs.com, 45cat.com, finnishcharts.com and soulfulkindamusic.com all say this was released in September 1970. But we're saying that they must all be "unreliable" or wrong because they have "user generated" content? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Soulful just shows "1970", 45cat "Sep 1970", and discogs "sept 1970", seconhand "September 1970". Only Finnish shows "30/9/1970" (a Wednesday, the last day of the month) – other Hung Medien affiliates have used the last day of the month, when others just show a month. It may be right or may be just repeating bad info from whoever wrote it first (it happens).

It's first mentioned in Billboard on January 9, 1971,[3] which seems odd if it was released in September. The view is only partial, but this self-published discography seems to show a December 14, 1970, overdub session. Regardless, only RS should be used and added to articles. If there is none, we shouldn't try to guess which may be more correct than the other. It's not critical info – the other covers don't mention a release date. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, all say 1970 and 4 of those 5 say September. A release date seems to me like a pretty standard encyclopaedic fact. As does the label and the catalogue number. I'm not sure why all the other covers couldn't have those. You mention a "self-published discography"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. 45cat (which I have never yet found to be wrong) says that the Sept 1970 issue was a promo. I suspect overdub sessions were done frequently, for various reasons.

45cat shows the same "Sep 1970" for the regular Atco release as well.[4] The label, cat. no., duration, and sometimes other info can easily be verified by looking at the image. So where does the release date come from? Billboard, along with the self-published not-RS discography (Simonds discography), cast some doubts about a September 1970 release that needs a real RS to verify. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. But my snippet view of Roy Simonds' book does not seem to show a date. What date does he give? If it's not RS, I'm not sure how it can "cast doubt" on anything? I don't know why Billboard might be late, as they would probably have been sent a copy by Atlantic on release. But again it proves nothing, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Copied from search page:

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 59

Produced by King Curtis . New York . December 14 , 1970 70C -
20806 Whole Lotta Love Atco 6779 Overdub session : Danny Moore

( trumpet ) , Frank Wess ...[emphasis added]

Again, an actual RS needs to be used and linked. We should not be adding info from unreliable sources just because that's what is available. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for a copy of the snippet. Sorry, am now a little confused. Is this a RS or not? There's some other source which mentions December 14 , 1970? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Another self-published discography lists similar info:[5]

King Curtis And The Kingpins

King Curtis, tenor sax; and others.
NYC, December 14, 1970
20806 Whole Lotta Love Atco 45-6779

• Atco 45-6779 King Curtis - Whole Lotta Love / Floatin' [emphasis added]

It may just be repeating bad info or some recording for his version took place on Dec. 14, 1970. If so, the single could not have been released in Sept. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Um yes. How do we know what this was for? A better version of the single already issued? An album version? We just don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

They both note "Atco 45-6779" (the single), but being self-published, they can't be used anyway. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123: While looking at another single at 45cat, I noticed it included under Notes "BB July 31, 1965".[6] I checked another, and saw Notes "BB Sep 7, 1968 RW Sep 7, 1968 ..."[7]. Checking Billboard for those dates, both are mentioned in "Spotlight Singles" (often where new singles are announced) on those dates.[8][9] I wonder why 45cat didn't include a note for King Curtis showing a possible source for Sep. 1970 or using "BB Jan 9, 1971" from the Spotlight mention. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, that's a totally different single. Are we saying this means 45cat is wrong for "Whole Lotta Love", or missing something that's essential? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What is a totally different single? Atlantic 45-2690 is Zeppelin's single; Atco 45-6779 is the King Curtis single. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Hang On Sloopy" by The McCoys? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You're losing me. The Sloppy and Watchtower entries were used to illustrate that 45cat seems to indicate that sometimes its sources come from Billboard. If it had done the same for King Curtis, it would be possible to at least verify the date it used. It also may sometimes answer my earlier question, "So where does the release date come from?" —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes. Except, as per your instructions, 45cat.com is considered unreliable as it's user generated? So why should we bother with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

In this case it's unusable. But in others, it may point to a reliable source (WP:MUSIC/SOURCES has lists of sources considered generally reliable and unreliable). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. I still think the label ATCO could be sourced and added, as it was an imprint of Atlantic, Zeppelin's label. Wikipedia seems to have a general aversion to catalogue numbers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Added with better ref that shows Atco. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

CCS: RAK 104 (1970)

In the UK was this released only as the B-side to "Boom Boom"? If so should this be mentioned? Discogs.com has some images here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, only WLL reached the charts. Was the record company initially pushing BB or were the ID nos. just alphabetical or ? If not the former, it's probably not worth mentioning. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've always assumed A = A side and B = B side. That seems sort of logical? You're suggesting it's just alphabetical? Or it varies between labels? How do you tell which is the A side, otherwise? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Boom ("B") comes before Whole ("W"), so Boom becomes the A-side and Whole the B-side (I've seen it done on some old singles, when there is no other explanation). In the US, Rak was definitely pushing WLL.[10] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting. Maybe they changed their minds. Record companies would if enough DJs "flipped". I'm guessing that source is Jan 1971? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is a disagreement about the version that TOTP used. Kevin McE changed the prior wording "CCI's version" to "An alternative recording by CCS", with the edit summary "TOTP theme was not the CCS album version, which is not entirely instrumental ...", but did not supply a source.

• Lewis (one of the original refs used): "Their version of Led Zeppelin's 'Whole Lotta Love', which served as the theme to BBC television's Top of the Pops, reached number 13 in 1970 ..."
• The other, Masterson (self-published): "a Number 13 hit at the end of 1970 and which gained further immortality by being used as the theme to "Top Of The Pops" throughout most of the decade".
• Wall (used elsewhere in the article): "it was the CCS [charting] version of 'Whole Lotta Love' that would also become the theme tune for the next fifteen years [1970–1985] to Top of the Pops ... (Dropped in the eighties, the CCS version would be revamped into a techno-dance version and resurrected as the show's theme tune in the nineties.)"
• Coleman (The Independent used elsewhere): requires registration, so unable to quote.
• Billboard: "blockbuster instrumental treatment of the Led Zeppelin hit" (no mention of TOTP, but notes, "Flip: "Boom Boom")
• BBC news online: "TOTP's current format, launched on 1 May 1998, featured a new version of its most famous theme tune, Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love",[11] but doesn't indicate who or when it was recorded.

Apparently, there is more to the CCS and TOTP version(s) and the article needs to be clarified and properly sourced.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The TotP version is audibly different from the album version, and the album version is a lot longer than the title music for the TV programme and includes some vocal (did the Billboard reviewer actually listen to it?): short of providing audio clips, how do we demonstrate that? There is an unsourced (but present for nearly 14 years) anecdote on the CCS article stating that the TotP version was recorded at the BBC by BBC-employed musicians, many of whom were part of CCS and under the direction of John Cameron (who was behind CCS), to dodge paying royalties to RAK. Kevin McE (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, the Top of the Pops#Theme music section states (unsourced) that the theme was "based on the CCS release, but specially re-recorded by CCS with the same personnel from their first album, playing a 40-second version." The same article sources the 1998-2003 theme to one Ben Champan, but whether he was responsible for the whole recording or just the ugly electronic overdubbbing (of the BBC/CCS version?) is not specified. Kevin McE (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This youtube version,[12] labeled "top of the pops intro dec 1973 - ccs - whole lotta love - totp - (vhsrip) - vcd [jeffz].mpg", doesn't sound like the same recording (more than just an edit of the single version). But for WP, it only matters what reliable sources have written about it. If there are none, perhaps a more neutral statement can be included to acknowledge that 40 seconds of CCS's interpretation/adaptation/arrangement was used for a while in the 1970s as the TOTP intro theme, but leave out the wording about being from the album or the single "hit" version (are the single and album the same?). Also, vocal interjections/interludes appear in well-known "instrumentals" ("Tequila", "One of These Days", etc.) – maybe it can be clarified, as in OOTD ("The composition is instrumental except for the spoken line from drummer Nick Mason"). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

And a very heavily modified Mason, at that. I only opened this thread to try and determine if the UK single had WLL on the A-side or B-side lol. At least the album version doesn't pose that question. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

So few reliable sources are available that when and what TOTP used can't be determined, so it's unlikely that the A/B info can be confirmed. Proposed wording:

*1970 – CCS (or C.C.S.) recorded a mainly instrumental rendition with a flute playing the melody. Billboard described their version as a "blockbuster instrumental treatment of the Led Zeppelin hit", while Nick Coleman of The Independent thought that the cover "succeeded in ameliorating the tune's sexual specificity without stripping it of its rutty throb". Released as a single on the RAK label, it reached No. 13 on the UK singles chart in November 1970. Elsewhere, it reached No. 26 in Belgium (Flanders); No. 37 in Canada; No. 58 on the US Billboard Hot 100; and No. 58 on the US Cash Box Top 100 Singles. The UK music variety television programme Top of the Pops used brief versions by CCS members and others as its intro theme music at different times over the years.

Extended content

That proposal looks fine to me. But why does the TOTP version have anything to do with the A-side/B-side question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's likely that it would have turned up in several related searches. Maybe Kevin McE can add something. Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That text looks fine: I can't shed any light on the A/B side of the single, as I have the album, not the 7". Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. p.s. do we usually link the other countries' pop charts? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It was only done here because two different US charts were used. Also, for other countries, the chart providers/names often changed over the years, so the current links are misleading. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You wouldn't pipe link to RPM (magazine) for the 1971 Canadian chart? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this is too much detail. How about move to an efn and include a link to RPM: Released as a single on the RAK label, it reached No. 13 on the UK singles chart in November 1970, and reached the top 60 in several other countries. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Looks good. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I've made the changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Current credit

On Spotify in March 2022, the credit is given as "Arthur 'Big Boy' Crudup, Bernie Besman, Bukka White, Doc Pomus, Gene Pitney, James Oden, Jimmy Page, John Bonham, John Lee Hooker, John Paul Jones, Mort Shuman, Robert Plant, Willie Dixon." OK, Dixon sued before he died, but Crudup died in 1974 -- how did he & Pitney & the rest of them get there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatjpw (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I can verify that. Strange credit. Also on live versions. Saemikneu (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot of information - a remix with no fade at the end

https://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/remixoflz.html This is fairly enlightening. Took me hours to do this. I explain where the "pre-echo" really came from. Also the Theremin parts sounds like it should. Lot less nasty mix bus distortion too. And there's the audio examples of John Bonham groaning on almost every roll down the toms 96.255.70.154 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)