This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coda (Led Zeppelin album) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't remember wiki being a place to review albums, do you? -- Keith, evil dude 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
i dont think this is a compilation because none of the tracks had been released before. and if we are to consider this a compilation,then we will have to call Physical Grafitti a compilation too,the same with Let It Be from The Beatles...you get my point here? Lord revan 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Jimmy Page released it as a compilation, because these songs were recorded a lot earlier, and it wasn't supposed to be released until Bonham's death.
I've always thought of it as a studio album winding down Led Zeppelin with unreleased songs spanning their career. Also, Coda is a separate disc in the Complete Studio Recordings collection. Had it been a compilation album, the songs would have been bonus tracks on the each of the albums (For instance, "Hey Hey What Can I Do?" would have gone to Led Zeppelin III). The songs that were live are listed as studio sessions, which gives me the impression that Page considered it to be a studio album.--
Ninjaryu 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to what I said earlier, the sticker that comes on the Complete Studio Recordings says something to the effect of, "all nine studio albums". I don't remember the exact wording, but I remember that it said nine, which includes Coda.-- Ninjaryu ( talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Coda should be categorised as a studio album rather than a compilation album, as indicated by the following sources:
I can see this has already been discussed, but overall should this really be considered a studio album? Sure somepeople call it a studio album, but really? These were not recorded in the same session but rather spread over 1970-1978 sessions. It's like saying a 'Lost tracks' album is a studio album. Admitelly, Lost Songs 95-98 by David Gray IS a studio album, as all of the tracks were recorded in the same sessions. But should this really be considered a studio album? really? Is a B-Sides album a studio album?-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's "outtakes compilation" album. Not really a "compilation" like a "best of" or something but still not a studio album. After all, if it was either "studio" or "compilation" than im for the studio! Just my opinion. -Matt ( 85.132.159.230 ( talk) 15:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC))
Did Jack Royerton really mix this album? The statement about Royerton was added by an anonymous IP (possibly Royerton himself) who has a history of tagging articles with unsourced claims relating to him (see this thread at COIN for more info). Might be wise to check the original album (I would, but I don't own it) to see if Royerton is actually mentioned in it or if the claim that he mixed the album is a hoax. LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 03:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the track listing, I think the note that " I Can't Quit You Baby" is an Otis Rush cover (meaning, I gather, a performance of the song written by Willie Dixon using the arrangement that Otis Rush used in his 1966 recording) should be removed from its present position and added as a footnote by Dixon's name under the Writer(s) column. I'd make this change myself but I don't know how to make a footnote. -- Dyspeptic skeptic ( talk) 12:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed here a great deal, but this should correctly be listed as Zeppelin's final studio record. The band owed one more studio album to Atlantic, and this was released. It's not just a compilation of unused tracks, as some overdubs where done to the material. If just being leftover tracks means it doesn't qualify as a studio album, then Tattoo You by The Rolling Stones is in the same boat. Why is this so hard to accept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:cb03:8d00:996b:2879:2f15:79ac ( talk)
Two different RfCs have reached opposite conclusions; see Talk:Led Zeppelin#More Coda compilation vs studio. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coda (Led Zeppelin album) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't remember wiki being a place to review albums, do you? -- Keith, evil dude 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
i dont think this is a compilation because none of the tracks had been released before. and if we are to consider this a compilation,then we will have to call Physical Grafitti a compilation too,the same with Let It Be from The Beatles...you get my point here? Lord revan 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Jimmy Page released it as a compilation, because these songs were recorded a lot earlier, and it wasn't supposed to be released until Bonham's death.
I've always thought of it as a studio album winding down Led Zeppelin with unreleased songs spanning their career. Also, Coda is a separate disc in the Complete Studio Recordings collection. Had it been a compilation album, the songs would have been bonus tracks on the each of the albums (For instance, "Hey Hey What Can I Do?" would have gone to Led Zeppelin III). The songs that were live are listed as studio sessions, which gives me the impression that Page considered it to be a studio album.--
Ninjaryu 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to what I said earlier, the sticker that comes on the Complete Studio Recordings says something to the effect of, "all nine studio albums". I don't remember the exact wording, but I remember that it said nine, which includes Coda.-- Ninjaryu ( talk) 06:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Coda should be categorised as a studio album rather than a compilation album, as indicated by the following sources:
I can see this has already been discussed, but overall should this really be considered a studio album? Sure somepeople call it a studio album, but really? These were not recorded in the same session but rather spread over 1970-1978 sessions. It's like saying a 'Lost tracks' album is a studio album. Admitelly, Lost Songs 95-98 by David Gray IS a studio album, as all of the tracks were recorded in the same sessions. But should this really be considered a studio album? really? Is a B-Sides album a studio album?-- 77.99.231.37 ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's "outtakes compilation" album. Not really a "compilation" like a "best of" or something but still not a studio album. After all, if it was either "studio" or "compilation" than im for the studio! Just my opinion. -Matt ( 85.132.159.230 ( talk) 15:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC))
Did Jack Royerton really mix this album? The statement about Royerton was added by an anonymous IP (possibly Royerton himself) who has a history of tagging articles with unsourced claims relating to him (see this thread at COIN for more info). Might be wise to check the original album (I would, but I don't own it) to see if Royerton is actually mentioned in it or if the claim that he mixed the album is a hoax. LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 03:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
In the track listing, I think the note that " I Can't Quit You Baby" is an Otis Rush cover (meaning, I gather, a performance of the song written by Willie Dixon using the arrangement that Otis Rush used in his 1966 recording) should be removed from its present position and added as a footnote by Dixon's name under the Writer(s) column. I'd make this change myself but I don't know how to make a footnote. -- Dyspeptic skeptic ( talk) 12:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been discussed here a great deal, but this should correctly be listed as Zeppelin's final studio record. The band owed one more studio album to Atlantic, and this was released. It's not just a compilation of unused tracks, as some overdubs where done to the material. If just being leftover tracks means it doesn't qualify as a studio album, then Tattoo You by The Rolling Stones is in the same boat. Why is this so hard to accept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:cb03:8d00:996b:2879:2f15:79ac ( talk)
Two different RfCs have reached opposite conclusions; see Talk:Led Zeppelin#More Coda compilation vs studio. — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)