Talk:Over the Hills and Far Away (Led Zeppelin song)

Link

How come searching OTHAFA does not directly link to this page? Instead, it takes you to the "Search Results" page, where the only result is this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.17.83 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Outro

Allmusic says it's a harpsichord and I'm inclined to believe them. If a source for the claim that the outro was manipulated guitar is provided, that information can be re-inserted. -albrozdude 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Page stated in a 1991 "Guitar World" interview that the outro was a synthesizer, and that if you listen carefully you can hear it playing throughout the song. I'm removing the trivia bit. ScottSwan 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strange that it sounds exactly like an octave-coupled electric harpsichord running through a reverb tank. Now we have people claiming that the patently obvious steel guitar is a synthesizer to reconcile the various theories offered by Page. The fact of the matter is that Page isn't always the best source when it comes to this kind of stuff. JE1977 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Over the Hills and Far Away (Led Zeppelin song) → Over the Hills and Far Away (song)

• Message request to me wanting this page's move from Over the Hills and Far Away (song) to be reversed on the grounds that this song may be the dominant meaning among songs named "Over the Hills and Far Away" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Revert. Page was moved due to a request at WP:RM that had been moved from "uncontroversial" to "contested" and should be reverted unless there is consensus here for the new name. There are two songs with this title with articles on WP. This song is the primary usage because it has twice the pageviews, many times the incoming links, and more google hits. The traditional song is referenced directly from a hatnote so that virtually all readers can get where they want with one click or less. By redirecting Over the Hills and Far Away (song) to a dab page, all ~10k readers per month wind up somewhere they don't want to be. Station1 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• But how long will Over the Hills and Far Away (Led Zeppelin song) remain a dominant meaning? Down the years I have seen thousands of ephemeral popular songs briefly be a public sensation and gradually go back into the past. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then we can move it back here. But right now the LZ song is the most common use of the term, and thus the article should be moved back. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose move The purpose of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is to save the reader from going through a dab page when it is overwhelmingly likely that all readers will want one specific meaning (as with San Francisco). That is not so here; those who want the LZ song should be able to find this article; those who want the long famous traditional song to which they refer, should be able to find that. (And the dab page lists others). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Revert to original title The LZ song is the most common use, per stats pointed out above. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keep as is. I see no point in unnecessarily creating more ambiguity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Avoid abiguity. MPFC1969 14:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Undecided, with comment - I'm undecided because both sides have good points about the Primary Usage standard. However, I will point out that if the article is reverted back to its previous title, the hatnote that is at the top of the article now would probably need other options added to it, which is likely to make things even more awkward. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Over the Hills and Far Away (Led Zeppelin song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130208135924/http://www.billboard.com/charts/1973-07-28/hot-100 to http://www.billboard.com/charts/1973-07-28/hot-100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150116062747/http://www.billboard.com/charts/2007-12-01/digital-songs to http://www.billboard.com/charts/2007-12-01/digital-songs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Content?

There is practically no comment about the content of the lyrics as a whole, and no mention of the claim at The Lord of the Rings that the song refors to the trilogy. While I'm not a scholar of those matters, it's hard to believe it has never been mentioned in all the articles and books and webpages concerning zeppelinology. --Oop (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)