Talk:Led Zeppelin

Influence/ Legacy Heading!!!???

Ok, we all know that Led Zeppelin is one of the biggest rock bands (after Beatles and Stones). Don't you think that we should have a legacy/ influence heading for this article, for one of the most influential music artists of all time.--115.186.73.203 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to make one yourself, just find sources. Start Existing (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've been working on a very well-referenced, comprehensive and unbiased legacy section and I'll add it soon. It goes pretty well with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please do not remove/ revert until clarifying/ discussing here on the talk page. Thank you all. --Scieberking (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit warring by User:JohnLonnnnnn

This new ongoing edit war by User:JohnLonnnnnn needs to cease. His edit patterns clearly show bad faith in trying to add contradictory material to Led Zeppelin related pages that somehow reduce the band's impact on the genres of hard rock and heavy metal while at the same time puffing up the contributions of other acts. The user needs to start using this page to propose his changes to other editors and wait for consensus as to whether or not they are valid edits. Fair Deal (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Editor should stop re-adding unwanted text. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to engage in an editing war, i was just trying to make the articles more accurate, and despite people's objections I complied and altered them further, still changing them more too people's liking, however, U seem to not want to acknowledge Led Zeppelin's influences, and the source and book in question did state the band to be influenced by those bands, and has nothing to do with deminishing the band's influence. I do feel u are taking a all-mightier then though approach, which is unfortunate, because i was just trying to make the articles more accurate and truthful, without taking from the band. : ) -Two, the Led Zeppelin ii source does not stat that the album inspired those bands, it says it implies a starting point for bands like that, it does not say directly "inspired", thats the truth. -I am not trying to cause any trouble, and I think its unfair that these articles, are heavy handed in altering, even though what i changed, fixed and removed was all valid. -The addition of Jeff Beck and his album was not added with malice, I just felt it was more accurate, and even though i altered it to even down played the reference, it still was removed. -The influences were from a book, and it was referenced and true. -Feel free to discuss with me, but i d feel u are being very unreasonable.--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edits and they do not look like they are not in good faith. You have continued to re-introduce content that tries to negate Led Zeppelin's musical contributions by introducing debate and contrary statements. The original text in the article never claims that the band is THE prime source or influence for the heavy metal bands that followed them. And the text does not deviate from its references to try and alter its meaning. If it were content that made bold matter-of-fact statements about a controversial topic then a counter-argument may be required. But in this case, and I believe it has been pointed to already, this topic is far from controversial. Comparisons to The Jeff Beck Group or Cream or The Jimi Hendrix Experience where impact and influence is concerned is simply not merited here. GripTheHusk (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I mostly disagree, and again i think u should read what i wrote and what i said above, an influences section is fully warranted, and beneficial, and the mentioning of those bands on Led Zeppelin ii, should say a start point of sorts, and not "inspiring" them. : ) --JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think its ridiculous that u wouldn't allow an influences sections, When the band was clearly influences by other bands and the source was a book. It has nothing to do with taking from other bands, and was just trying to make it more accurate. -Overpraise, and over protection of the band's article, is heavy handed, and its stuff like this that gives them a band name. - ALso the claims that Led Zeppelin II "inspired" those bands mentioned, is inaccurate, the source in question says it was a starting point of sorts for those bands. -When i added it was debatable or disputed that the album was the blueprint, i kept the other sources in, and added that Beck's Truth was also seen as such... It was not intent with malice, and the claim was paranoia and i think it should be kept in there, as it was influential on rock/metal works including Pages. That would have made it more balanced, while Still giving the band the cred that they have been given. -please discuss with me, but the edits to what i posted were unreasonable, considering i altered them even further to try and please everyone, yet still got removed. : )--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on heavy metal music is where you need to take your debate. This article is about Led Zeppelin. And it contains only referenced information about the band and does not need non-subject material added in. Time-Life Magazine's 10 part documentary on the history of rock and roll does not use the term 'heavy metal' until it comes to content specifically about Led Zeppelin. Even though the same documentary, only minutes before the Led Zeppelin content is introduced, is focused on interviews with Jeff Beck and his career following his departure from The Yardbirds. There is nothing inaccurate about the wording in this article as, pointed out earlier, it makes no bold concrete claim on the subject of the genres birth. And as for contradictory material against the bands influence on the genre, the article already has that in abundance, including statements from the band members themselves about there own dislike of the term. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, but i still think a influences reference page is valid, and theres more debate too it, and other bands pages have em, i don't see why this one can't and why it wouldn't be cool. theres a plagiarism section, i don't see why an influences section would be seen as such a stretch. --JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When you proposed this same idea under the account name "Johnnybritches" and it did not go anywhere did you not get the hint that is was unwanted content? An influences section for Led Zeppelin would contain content about Tommy Johnson and Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters. And the content relating to those artists is already in the article. Or in the articles about the individual members. It would not contain content about musicians and bands from the same era. Wether B (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he got the idea from Johnnybritches, and 115.186.73.203 and Start Existing above, they all seem to be on the same page. Sswonk (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again theres no real reason why a influences page would not be acceptable. And this is the kinda thing that makes us look stupid in the eyes of others. If your gonna mention the bluesman, the other blues rock guys should be mentioned, and I think the only reason u don't want it is because u think it takes away from Zeppelin... but it doesn't.--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article for Page/Plant partnership

Hey, how bout we start an article on the songwriting partnership of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page? It was one of the best and it's totally famous. I can't believe we didn't think of it before. TheKing44444 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)TheKing44444

Genre transcending!

Anyone else find this passage in the lead kind of ridiculous?

"However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also incorporated rockabilly,[6] reggae,[7] soul,[8] funk,[9] classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country.[10]"

I mean, c'mon, does reggae belong in the lead simply because they recorded one song with a reggae influence? I'm tempted to lay some s down for the six unsourced genres in that passage. I suppose "The Battle of Evermore" is the justification for Celtic? Let me guess, "Kashmir" is the justification for both Indian and Arabic? This is so silly. They don't "transcend" any one genre. They're a rock band. A rock band that dabbled in other genres with a handful of songs. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine just the way it is right now. The band jumped genres and mixed styles frequently during their live performances going back to the days before they even had a recorded product. They often skipped through multiple genres within the same song, including reggae flourishes and Page's DADGAD experimentations. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be so, Peter, I've heard some interesting "Whole Lotta Love" medleys from them, but, c'mon, rockabilly, reggae, soul, funk, classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country? If anything, that stuff is footnote material, not lead material. What's Latin, "Fool in the Rain"? What's country, "Hot Dog"? Or is that rockabilly? What's classical? I mean, the Rolling Stones have probably recorded enough country to mention that genre in their lead, but Led Zeppelin?!? There is no good reason to put country in the lead of a Led Zeppelin article. Same goes for Indian, Arabic, etc. Heck, The Who recorded half a dozen surf rock songs, far more than Zeppelin ever recorded of any of these genres listed in their lead, but you aren't going to see Surf Rock in The Who's lead because it's just half a dozen songs. But Led Zeppelin record "The Battle of Evermore" and suddenly Celtic music is lead worthy? Seriously? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I am a member of the WP:Led Zeppelin project and contributor. To answer your question, yes, it is one of the least attractive sentences in the article. I believe it could be "Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also drew influences from many other styles of popular music." This could then be footnoted with all of the other styles listed within the note with inline citations, instead of the pseudo-references that currently exist. Sswonk (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with what the content is trying to convey. Re-wording it slightly would be OK but the genre jumping list should still be maintained. As mentioned before they certainly did merge several genres into their music including crossing multiple genres within a single track. What is In The Light... Arabic blues... Indian soul... Raga metal... . Using Sswonk's initial sentence combined with the list it reads Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: reggae, soul, funk, classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country. ... it is not a false statement. If it were a false statement then it could be removed. But, in this case... in that wording... it is not a false statement. They did draw influence from all those elements. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Libs, in that this stuff isn't going in the lead as "Led Zepplin is a Raga-Metal/Arabic/Latin/..." etc etc, but it simply states that over the years, their music pulled from those styles. --16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's false, but to 74's point, it isn't all that extraordinary for groups to have many influences as we all know. My proposal to footnote the balance of it is based on economy of words. As I have often thought, it is an ungainly sentence. Sswonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well... let's shorten it up a little then... Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: Celtic, Arabic, Latin, funk, pop and country.... Funk is just soul on steroids... Indian is only found in Page's tunings but Arabic shows up quite a bit... Latin can cover (sort of) reggae... Classical?? thats JPJs background but not so much LZ... and pop... every band who gets a song on top 40 radio has a bit-o-pop in them. That shortens it to 6 examples... which is usually my threshold of example farming anyways. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An addenenadumbdumb... lose country and just put rockabilly. There's 6. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: Celtic, Arabic, Latin, funk, pop and rockabilly.

Who's that then? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Sswonk (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Sswonk's much more concise and elegant solution of saying they "drew influences from many other styles of popular music," but this six genre list is certainly an improvement. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it'd be good to put the longer version in the body of the article somewhere. A "Musical style" type section would be a good fit, but there's not one now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure... a well cited 'musical style' section is always a good thing when an artist is diverse. You wouldn't do one for... say... AC/DC.... but for LZ it would be more than fitting. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would also make for good reading. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The horribly clunky sentence in question is still in the article. Why? 98.113.216.32 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First line, JPJ on mandolin?

It wasn't very often we see JPJ on mandolin do we want to include that? That would kinda be like listing everyone as back up sings aswell.Brando26000 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Radio segment on the Band and Sources

I want to add information in regards to a radio segment that I heard on the band, tried to before, but it got removed. Are radio segments not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 09:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Am I to assume that radio segments on the band can not be included as sources? I will add the information in, but if someone identifies that radio segment on song comparisons is not for inclusion, I'll find other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the the way around. If you have a source from a radio program(me) you should have the same citation as any other source and preferably include the time when the quote/info was said. It's not fro others to "disprove" what you have heard is incorrect --Candy (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

heavy metal first please

"The exact order and wording by editor consensus is: Hard rock, heavy metal"

The most sources point to Led Zeppelin as one of the pioneers of heavy metal. So why hard rock appears in front first? The Allmusic itself in its definition of heavy metal points Led Zeppelin as the first metal band ([Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655] says: Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources.). On the main page of Led Zeppelin at [Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1], which reads: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound."

We Have the film Some Kind of Monster Metallica, where the Father of Lars Ulrich explains the rise of metal in England with Led Zeppelin to the days of Metallica.

We are hit with the audience and critical Metal: the headbanguer's Journey (2005) showing that the hard rock bands have emerged since the early metal. The film also shows the Led Zeppelin as early metal and not hard rock. Please look at movie infos: [Definitive metal family tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey#.22Definitive_metal_family_tree.22] "The chart from the film documents Dunn's view on the progression of 24 subgenres of metal that have spawned over time, while also attempting to list the prime examples of bands that fall into each category. Below is a typed version of that chart, which can be found on the second disc of the film's special edition DVD package.

The film's flow chart of metal genresEarly metal (1966−1971) Cream; Jimi Hendrix; Blue Cheer; Deep Purple; Led Zeppelin; MC5; Mountain; The Stooges; Black Sabbath"

Even as we call the sources that Led Zeppelin Metal: Kerrang Magazine February 2009: http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal!

"40 years ago this week a little known British band released their eponymous debut album and single handily changed the face of music forever. That band was Led Zeppelin and the genre they subsequently spawned became known as heavy metal. In this week's Kerrang! magazine we celebrate as metal turns the big four oh."

Chad Bowar: Metal Timeline: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_timeline.htm

Black Sabbath Biography: http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/black_sabbath/Black_Sabbath_Biography.htm Tony Iommi Biography by Greg Prato: "Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal." source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

Judas Priest Biography by Stephen Thomas Erlewine & Greg Prato Judas Priest was one of the most influential heavy metal bands of the '70s, spearheading the New Wave of British Heavy Metal late in the decade. Decked out in leather and chains, the band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin, as well as adding a vicious two-lead guitar attack; in doing so, they set the pace for much popular heavy metal from 1975 until 1985, as well as laying the groundwork for the speed and death metal of the '80s. source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse

NWOBHM: The New Wave of British Heavy Metal re-energized heavy metal in the late '70s and early '80s. By the close of the '70s, heavy metal had stagnated, with its biggest stars (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath) either breaking away from the genre or sinking in their own indulgence, while many of its midlevel artists were simply undistinguished, churning out bluesy hard-rock riffs. The NWOBHM kicked out all of the blues, sped up the tempo, and toughened up the sound, leaving just a mean, tough, fast, hard metallic core. It didn't make any attempts to win a wide audience — it was pure metal, made for metal fans. Perhaps that's the reason why it's at the foundation of all modern-day metal: true metalheads either listened to this, or to bands like Metallica, which were inspired by bands like Diamond Head. Source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760

BBC London: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin) and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/678d88b2-87b0-403b-b63d-5da7465aecc3

London BBC: Heavy Metal http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A353134

Rhapsody.com "There's been a lot of bunk stirred up about Led Zeppelin over the years. Accuse the band of blues-ploitation, accuse them of occultism, accuse them of selling out. Join, if you wish, the Lilliputian chorus assembled against them; or join the majority for whom mere mention of the band inspires awe. From the raw intensity of "Communication Breakdown" to the cosmic sonorities of "Kashmir" and dubbed-up funk of "D'Yer Mak'er," Zeppelin's music almost never fails to compel. In their prime, Robert Plant's vocal range seemed as wide as the Milky Way, while Jimmy Page set new standards for sloppy perfection on guitar. Meanwhile, John Paul Jones has only John Entwistle to compete with for the centerfold spot in the Who's Who of bass guitarists. And though John Bonham's aspirations ultimately proved to be his undoing, he is revered by many as rock's most powerful drummer. Together they developed the mother tongue from which every Metal dialect derives -- a tongue spoken in psychedelic blues phrases delivered at overdriven speeds. Inevitably, Zeppelin will continue to be passed down like a sacred amulet by older brothers, uncles, fathers and eventually grandfathers to new generations of adolescents getting hip all over again to bell-bottoms, long hair and marijuana."

Allmovie: The Song Remains the Same Plot Synopsis by Clarke Fountain In 1973, the seminal rock band Led Zeppelin, one of the founders of the music genre known as "heavy metal," went on tour and performed in Madison Square Garden. This documentary has concert footage, including the 23-minute-long version of the song "Dazed and Confused." The film also shows the musicians at home, pursuing some of their hobbies including drag-racing. The concert coverage also has scenes revealing what took place backstage, and a discussion of the theft of the band's cash during their visit to New York."

biography at Roling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography

VH1 - HISTORY OF HEAVY METAL http://www.vh1.com/shows/heavy_the_story_of_metal/episodes.jhtml

People Magazine: December 20, 1976 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15249041/Led-ZeppelinPEO-19761220-ISSUE

People Magazine: August 27, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 9 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074422,00.html

The Book Hammer of the Gods by Stephen Davis http://www.librarything.com/work/335340

HEAVY METAL BIBLE http://www.metalbible.com/heavy-metal-bands/l/led-zeppelin-2.html

Then Why hard rock first? Heavy metal must appears first. Paulotanner (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

To summarize all of the above stuff and references, Led Zeppelin helped invent Heavy Metal Music, but the band was/is not a heavy metal band. --Scieberking (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources did not say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in the following text by Ricknupp and socks him. Here is the text in its stable form: "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre.[1][2][3][4][5]

The sources are clear and diverse. Led Zeppelin was called heavy metal in his time and even today. [1]http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_timeline.htm Late 1960's - Early 1970's "The birth of heavy metal. Groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were the first heavy metal bands."

[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A353134 This was the decade where HM first appeared as we know it, spearheaded by the likes of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Motorhead, and Black Sabbath. It was rather tame compared to the HM you may be familiar with today, but still rather hardcore for audiences back then. These were the days before the likes of Slayer and Bathory.

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey "Definitive metal family tree" The chart from the film documents Dunn's view on the progression of 24 subgenres of metal that have spawned over time, while also attempting to list the prime examples of bands that fall into each category. Below is a typed version of that chart, which can be found on the second disc of the film's special edition DVD package.

The film's flow chart of metal genres Early metal (1966−1971) Cream; Jimi Hendrix; Blue Cheer; Deep Purple; Led Zeppelin; MC5; Mountain; The Stooges; Black Sabbath

[4]http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1 Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues — it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) — into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography It wasn't just Led Zeppelin's thunderous volume, sledgehammer beat, and edge-of-mayhem arrangements that made it the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer, it was the band's finesse.

That the text, added the sources above as it shows that they were called heavy metal in 1976.People Magazine: December 20, 1976 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15249041/Led-ZeppelinPEO-19761220-ISSUE

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Etymology Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.[55]

Kerrang! Magazine 14/01/2009http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal! 40 years ago this week a little known British band released their eponymous debut album and single handily changed the face of music forever. That band was Led Zeppelin and the genre they subsequently spawned became known as heavy metal.

The text can not fight against the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more clear about the issue. Please stop edit warring.

The First Source is NOT highly reliable and written by a semi-professional, Chad Bowar, who may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. About.com guides are notoriously controversial and they hire amateurs, more clearly "freelancers who work online and set their own schedules, giving them the flexibility to work when it suits them".

The Second Source from BBC is openly written by an outside contributor, not a music journalist, and thus lacks spontaneity or originality or individuality. Secondly this inexpert overview does not label Zeppelin (and even Cream and Jimi Hendrix) primarily as a Heavy metal band, but the pioneer or spearhead.

The Third Source even worse goes on to directly list Cream and Jimi Hendrix as "suspected heavy metal bands".....?

All Music Biography as a fourth source is highly reliable, but then again highly controversial. --Scieberking (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Source, RS Biography, to me, is the most reliable, and describes Zeppelin as a Heavy metal pioneer, not a so-called one-dimensional heavy-metal band. Secondly, if the article subject (Robert Plant and Jimmy Page) themselves maintain that labeling them as "heavy metal" is unfair and "defamatory", then WP:BLP recommends to omitt/ modify such information.

So in all fairness, "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre." sounds just and is a good compromise. Now, stop edit warring. --Scieberking (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The stable version was changed by personal journals of the time as people have called the Led Zeppelin's heavy metal.

People Magazine: August 27, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 9 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074422,00.html

Clearer than that? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin."

Keep fighting against Allmusic here: 1 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke 2 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse 3 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760

Chad Bowar is semi professional? WHO ARE YOU? http://heavymetal.about.com/bio/Chad-Bowar-17543.htm ".Chad is a longtime music journalist specializing in heavy metal and currently residing in Charlotte, North Carolina. Though he may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving.

Experience: Chad has been involved in metal for over 20 years. He writes or has written for several national music publications including Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, Loud Fast Rules and more. He's done hundreds of interviews over the years with members of bands such as Judas Priest, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Queensryche, Sepultura, In Flames and more. In addition, Chad has covered events like Ozzfest, Warped Tour and the New England Metal and Hardcore Festival. He's also worked in radio for the past two decades at stations all over the country."

The Third Source wORSE? tHE MOVIE WITH metal gods like Ronnie James Dio? Alice Cooper? Bruce Dickson? Tony Iommi? Geedy Lee? They spoke abou heavy metal.

There are many sources as Paul brought up. There is a clear conflict of interest here by changing history. And you are allowing it. Keep feeding sock puppets and changing history. THIS is the story:

"People Magazine: December 20, 1976 Heavy Metal Gods By Jim Jerome It's the Critics, Not Led Zeppelin, Says Robert Plant, That Are Full of Hot Air Rock'n'roll is barely two decades old, but its historians have already determined its Dark Ages: during the decline of the Beatles' civilization but before the enlightenment of Los Angeles and Nashville had taken firm hold. That was the Heavy Metal Age, roughly 1969-71, when one group, Great Britain's Led Zeppelin, emerged as the genre's unrivaled sovereign. Heavy metal is the music that most closely commits artistic child abuse, aimed, as it is, at a constituency presumably under 18. Led Zep's pulverizing force has made it a sound to get cauliflower ears by and, as such, is preferably experienced in a semiconscious state. Yet, unintimidated by critics, rock fans all over the world scuffed up 24 million Zep albums (the group outsells the Rolling Stones' LPs in the U.S. by about two to one). It has also grossed some $15 million in concerts in the U.S., along the way breaking tour records of the Beatles themselves. Now there's another LP and a film of old concert footage-cum-fantasy sequences, both titled The Song Remains the Same. Though heavy metal has faded as an art form, Led Zeppelin continues to pillage and plunder the land, as ever the most puissant rock group on earth. The double LP, the group's first-ever live (not counting poor-quality bootlegs), has become their eighth platinum release (out of eight), and the film is now filling some 80 theaters across the U.S. It is little more than the group's home movie monument to itself, full of violent nightmares and narcissism, but it will gross another $3 million by Christmas.

I'm sorry but you is not the best person for this discussion. You are going through at least two sources that date from the 70th.

and the NEW

Kerrang! Magazine 14/01/2009 http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal!

You erased the history! Talk with LESTER BANGS and try AGAIN change the History of Rock! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Etymology Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.[55]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk)

I have fully protected this page due to an ongoing content dispute. I have given this full protection for now as it seems to be a dispute beyond User:Ricknupp. It has been proposed on my talk page to reduce protection to semi-protection to allow registered established users to edit. Any thoughts on this? Would it help matters if I reduced it to semi or not? I am little hesitant to do this as it would allow other parties to edit but not 201.67.35.253 (talk · contribs), which may be unfair during a disagreement. Given the above exchange perhaps it would be better left on full. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk with the FATHER of Lars Ulrich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Kind_of_Monster_(film) In this movie he He explains who was the first heavy metal band.

The stable version of this page has changed and so YOU changed the history of music as it is registered. The 70th sources are above read, if you can... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lie that erases history. I did not make any change I kept PAGE AS IT WAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Camaron. Whatever you suggest, I'd be open to that. Led Zeppelin are the pioneers of heavy metal is not controversial, but the allegation that they were strictly a heavy metal band is, beyond any doubt, is disputable, capable of arousing controversy, and even worse, offensive to original band members. I think releasing the protection for account holders might not be good idea as far as vandals can easily creates multiple accounts. Thank you for your tireless efforts, Mr. Camaron, as a senior editor and administrator. --Scieberking (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I reach similar conclusions as you do regarding reducing the protection. Hopefully once things have calmed down a bit the page can be fully unprotected, though for the time being I think it is best left as it is. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I just wanted to bring up a couple of arguments to Scieberking. First thing is, that the band's opinion about their genre is not relevant. The band's opinion is not a third party reliable source. Many bands do not agree with their categorization as heavy metal, including AC/DC, Motörhead among others.

The other thing is: how do we know that the "allegation" (as you call it) that they are a heavy metal band is disputable? Your attitude is that the heavy metal genre "beyond any doubt, is disputable". I personally do not know whether it is disputable or not. To find out the answer, whether the heavy metal genre is disputable or not, we need to look up to the sources:

To illustrate one point, I will pick one of the above presented reliable third party sources: Allmusic Led Zeppelin biography. This source states: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." This is not only an explicit statement that they are a heavy metal band. This statement also includes the word "definitive", which is crucial to illustrate this point. This word indicates that the author is conscious of other bands that can be heavy metal (or are disputably heavy metal), but that this one is the "definitive" one: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." Except for this source, many others can be found stating defacto simply "Led Zeppelin are heavy metal": "one of the first heavy metal bands" (BBC), "the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer" (Rolling Stone)

To illustrate the other point, we need reliable third party sources that state something in the manner of "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all". But don't forget that statements such as "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin"[1] do not support this point. That statement says that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin was the first metal band, or not the first one. But it does not say that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin play heavy metal at all. A source that states that Led Zeppelin is hard rock and blues rock also does not support this point, as well as multiple such sources don't (WP:SYNTHESIS)

So to illustrate your point, the only thing you need to do, Scieberking, is to present third party sources, reliable at least as Allmusic, BBC or Rolling Stone, that state explicitly "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here’s some “stuff” (just to make clear that the fact that Led Zeppelin was strictly a heavy metal band is CONTROVERSIAL, I ain't a participant in edit war rather a "negotiator" and "peacemaker"):

In the houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the power of rock music By Susan Fast : Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal. It's as ludicrous as calling the Beatles "pop" or Dylan a "folkie." (An argument by a fan when asked about by the author). --Scieberking (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how fan's opinion is relevant. Try to elaborate on some statements written by proffesional music journalists. A fan's statement such as "Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal" does not seem to be reliable enough for an encyclopedia. You should try to come up with a counterweight to Allmusic, BBC, Rolling Stone "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band", not some random fan's opinion. If you fail to do so, there's nothing much more I can discuss.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Only a third opinion? LOL. Here T-Bone Burnett elaborates "People confuse Led Zeppelin with what came after them, as if they were a heavy metal band. But the incantations that Robert was singing were drawn from the Delta and the Appalachian mountains. It was music of the mud and earth. They had many gears they could go up, but at its essence was something raw and true and authentic."
While Plant understands the allusion: "Zep sometimes get taken for granted as a cliché of rock and roll, which is a malfunctioning generalisation. Led Zeppelin spawned a million imitators on one level or another, whether it be Bonzo's loops in early hip-hop, Pagey's hybridising of eastern scales and tuning, a culture of men in codpieces screaming blue murder. But it wasn't about being hard rock or heavy metal, where there's only one way of doing it. All the way through Zeppelin there was a dynamic.". Lykantrop, I respect your opinion and I just want to solve this disruption. I don't disagree that Zeppelin has been labeled by rock journos as a "Heavy metal band", but If you put this controversial fact again, I fear the vandals won't hesitate to break out an edit war again. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic sources are clear. The only Ricknupp vandal is a crazy Brazilian who does not accept the opposite view. I'm trying to keep the page as it existed. I agree with everything that LYKANTROP said. The artist view of himself is irrelevant. The fan view idem. The historical facts are established. The band was called heavy metal in 1970, 1976, 1979, 1982, .... 2009. Not for us to judge what is recorded in history. Anyone in their right mind would believe that James Brown said: I AM NOT FUNK! You are taking advantage of a vandal, a TROLL combat. If you Scieberking read in Portuguese I would show only one link that betray who ricknupp.

The materials that I put the Roling Stone show that they were always called heavy metal. The dates range from the 70s to 2000. You have questioned the film's Metal headbanguer the Journey but neither wanted to know who gives testimony there. Vandalism is not accepting more sources such as Kerrang, 2009 and go over all times during his decades when the Zepp was called heavy metal.

Scieberking sources are all up and down but I bring more sources of weight. Clear that the old phrase impossible:Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin) and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre.[1][2][3][4][5] However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre.

More sources

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hcfrxqy5ldte~T1

John Bonham: Across the ensuing decade, the band ruled the heavy metal landscape

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655

Heavy Metal definition: Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3ifyxqe5ldae~T1

Iron Maiden were one of the first groups to be classified as "British metal," and, along with Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and a host of other bands, set the rock scene for the '80s.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=1:JUDAS%7CPRIESTthe band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin,

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal.

The old phrase is the one that best applies to the sources. Paulotanner (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What you brought up, Scieberking, is one musician's opinion and, again, the band's attitude. That is not really satisfactory for me.

One more thing that I wanted to say is: Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources. I think I've said pretty much everything. Most likely, I won't be online for the next couple of days so have a good luck with the discussion. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Paulotanner. While I appreciate your arguments, I'd strongly suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:EQ. "Crazy Brazilian"?? He might be a vandal but there is absolutely no reason for being a xenophobic offender on Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I agree with LYKANTROP when He says: "Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources."

Scieberking I ask you to reconsider your position and think about the words of LYKANTROP. We are putting out a fact of history by changing the first paragraph and not let them in his stable. Vandalism can't change the FACTS, the history.

One more thing. I can not be xenophobic because I am Brazilian, Checks and see my IP. Ricknupp not allow another point of view or argument to the contrary. He wants to deal with wikipedia as an extension of blogs, where he can manipulate people. If you read português I show. He does not accept facts. Please think about LYKANTROP words.

Greetings.Paulotanner (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LYKANTROP!! Thankfully the story and the facts will prevail and the first paragraph back to its stable form. Thank you all! Paulotanner (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told that a consensus has been reached, and given that things seem to have calmed down a bit I am now unprotecting the page. I will be keeping an eye on the page for a bit though to see how things go. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands - sources over the decades

In Roling Stoene Magazine: STEPHEN DAVIS (Posted: May 20, 1976) "Led Zeppelin's seventh album confirms this quartet's status as heavy-metal champions of the known universe." http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/224305/review/5945483?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview

CHARLES M. YOUNG (Posted: Oct 18, 1979) "Back when Led Zeppelin was setting the heavy-metal standard" http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/197643/review/5944431?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview

KURT LODER (MTV) (Posted: Jan 20, 1983) "Coda is a resounding farewell from the greatest heavy-metal band that ever strutted the boards." http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/165410/review/5945716/coda

MICHAEL AZERRAD (May 20, 2003) "The Holy Grail of heavy metal" http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/15323568/review/6039344/led_zeppelin

Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters, Nirvana) Posted Apr 15, 2004 12:00 AM "Heavy metal would not exist without Led Zeppelin, and if it did, it would suck." http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940050/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_14_led_zeppelin Paulotanner (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Book: Hammer Of The Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga

http://www.flipkart.com/hammer-gods-stephen-davis-led/0061473081-nmw3f97wu5 The members of Led Zeppelin are major deities in the pantheon of rock gods. The first and heaviest of the heavy metal monsters, they violently shook the foundations of rock music and took no prisoners on the road. Their tours were legendary, their lives were exalted--and in an era well known for sex and drugs, the mighty Zeppelin set an unattainable standard of excess and mythos for any band that tried to follow them. They were power, they were fantasy, they were black magic. No band ever flew as high as Led Zeppelin or suffered so disastrous a fall. And only some of them lived to tell the tale. "Hammer of the Gods" is the "New York Times" bestselling epic saga of the hard reign of Page, Plant, Jones, and Bonham--a spellbinding, electrifying, no-holds-barred classic of rock 'n' roll history that has now been updated to include the continuing adventures of the band.

Paulotanner (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What in God's name is going on in this article? The sentence should be what it was before, "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands", Zeppelin were a metal then and they are still a metal band now. RG (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I tend to agree in part, but that sentence is gaining too much controversy and, in turn, becoming a target of ongoing vandalism (in the same way as the Beatles are sometimes unfairly labeled as strictly "POP music"; not rock n' roll, and writers of "good nursery rhymes"). Because Zeppelin is ARGUABLY a metal band and UNARGUABLY the pioneer of heavy metal music. --Scieberking (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Several metal links from allmusic are ERASED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340296474&oldid=340256563

I really don' understand if alllmusic quote more than 5 times LZ = heavy metal and quote about hard rock: "while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar."

Seem clear Led Zeppelin is not a progenitor of hard rock, is a father of heavy metal, because hard rock ALREAD EXIST before Zepp and your contribution is "setting the template for much of what followed". The hard rock exists before Led Zeppelin and became known withAc]DC, Van halen, Aerosmith, not Led Zeppelin. Atention to: while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies' Led Zeppelin is HERE, in riffs function as stand-alone melodies NOT "exuberant, chest-thumping party music". Progenitors of hard rock???????? hard Rock progenitor are Jimi hendrix, Jeff Beck, Yardbirds. Paulotanner (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Paulotanner (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

very, very simple change

{{editprotected}}The very beginning, change "were" to "was", because Led Zeppelin is a single entity, and in that sentence it is being referred to as such. If the same problem occurs throughout the article, I think that should be changed as well. Chanman121 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, but I'll leave the request open for a short time to make sure that others agree. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DISAGREED. No, that's illogical. A plural form is always used, for instance, The Who are an, the Beatles were, and so on. Also, examine most music magazines. They also use "are" and "were". --Scieberking (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As there is disagreement, I have disabled this request for the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an error. It is how British English grammar handles a group of people. This has been explained on this talk page more than once before (in talk page archives now). See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the band is a single entity, and "were" is incorrect. HM211980 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)HM211980

Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions

It is actually very unfair to label Led Zeppelin "heavy metal" in the very first sentences of this article, and the band has also found the term offensive. On the other hand, some editors are insistent on using that disputed sentence, and I respect their opinion. Here's one simple change I came up with, which may justify both the opinions, and the source is even more authentic than Allmusic or any other references used presently:

With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal.

(From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).

Looking forward to your suggestions. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unspeakable ignorance to suggest that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock. Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 and didn't release an album until 1969. Hard rock was already thriving thanks to the likes of the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience and many others from the Amboy Dukes to Steppenwolf to Blue Cheer to Iron Butterfly and more. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Is that you? I just noticed that after seeing your talk page. Why don't you create an account or something? Nice to see you active on Wikipedia again, though. Yeah, your argument makes sense, but you're quite wrong, and the quote is from Britannica, and is by Susan Fast (one of the most respected authors on rock music), so I included it intact. And hey- your tone is kind of angry and accusatory again... I thought we were friends :)

Actually, Cream, Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck Group were not pure hard rock, but hard rock in its developmental stages- A cross of Blues-rock and Psychedelic rock. The Kinks and The Who's My Generation LP, being highly influential too, were more towards garage rock (and proto-punk).

• According to Wikipedia itself: Led Zeppelin (1969) and The Who's Live at Leeds (1970) are examples of music from the beginning of the hard rock genre. The blues origins of the albums are clear, and a few songs by well-known blues artists are adapted or covered within them.

• More examples, from a couple more "Idiots"- Allmusic: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. More

• AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Hard Rocks roots [not hard rock itself] can be found in the early Garage Rock and Psychedelic Rock.... British artists such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Who are considered by some to be the godfathers of hard rock [not hard rock bands], these bands defined the style of the genre..... It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock. More

• About.com: Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock or heavy metal. More

• A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by Piero Scaruffi: Hard-rock was still based on blues, like rock'n'roll had always been, but it was a faster, louder and stronger kind of music, that buried the suffering of the black people under thousands of decibels.

One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock.

However, Led Zeppelin (2), formed by ex-Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page and Alexis Korner's protege` Robert Plant, were, first and foremost, children of the blues. However, the jams of Led Zeppelin I (oct 1968 - jan 1969) introduced a hysterical approach to black music that even blacks had never dreamed of (culminating in the epileptic zenith of Communication Breakdown). Led Zeppelin's sound was an extension of electric blues that relied on three factors: a faster, almost frenzied, pace; a loud and scorching howl that almost parodied the black "shouters" and had psychotic overtones; forceful guitar playing of great imagination with mystic overtones. The melodrama of songs such as Whole Lotta Love (1969) was continuously ruptured by guitar riffs and delirious vocals. Cream had played blues-rock as brain music: Led Zeppelin played blues-rock as body music.

If you're still not satisfied, we may ask for a third opinion. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to say that Led Zeppelin are considered ONE OF the progenitors of hard rock, or A progenitor of hard rock, I could accept that compromise. Several of your own quotes reflect that. But saying that Led Zeppelin are THE progenitors of hard rock is just plain ridiculous. The Jimi Hendrix Experience are a hard rock band. They released all three of their albums before Led Zeppelin released anything. The Who are a hard rock band. Their live sound is as hard rock as hard rock gets, long before Led Zeppelin existed. Cream are a hard rock band. They formed, released their music, and broke up before Led Zeppelin released anything. Any reasonably informed rock aficionado knows this. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Been EDITED; as a compromise. Either way, it says the same thing. Yeah Kinks, Cream, The Who, Jimi Hendrix Experience, all existed before Zeppelin, were great bands, and along with Zeppelin, are the ancestors of hard rock, however Zeppelin eventually became bigger and higher selling than them all. They are all influential, great bands. --Scieberking (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Led Zeppelin is not hard rock progenitor the sources show HEAVY METAL not hard rock. Roling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Led_Zeppelin_are_regarded_as_one_of_the_first_heavy_metal_bands_-_sources_over_the_decades Paulotanner (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard rock article is a big joke call Zepp hard roprogenitor of hard rock is a jojke: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2009)"

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues — it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) — into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound. Paulotanner (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"British rock band that was extremely popular in the 1970s. Although their musical style was diverse, they came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal." Paulotanner (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner. No article on wikipedia is a joke. Stop adding disruption to this article, otherwise you could be blocked from editing wikipedia as you did here and here. Your edits, being unconstructive, were reverted. The source for (one of the) "the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal" is from Encyclopædia Britannica and Allmusic. Don't remove my well-referenced content again. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic is clear and not talk about progenitors, the progenitor are Jimi hendrix The Who and others, allmusic said: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 The first seeds of heavy metal were sown in the British blues movement of the '60s, specifically among bands who found it hard to adjust to the natural swing of American blues. The rhythms became more squared-off, and the amplified electric instruments became more important, especially with the innovations of artists like the Kinks, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and the Jeff Beck Group. Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources.

Stop to change the 1 paragraphy. Paulotanner (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ONE Source against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Led_Zeppelin_are_regarded_as_one_of_the_first_heavy_metal_bands_-_sources_over_the_decades ? How Many sources you read above? Paulotanner (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, Britannica is far more authentic than AllMusic. Secondly, AllMusic says the same thing: Led Zeppelin are the progenitors/ancestors of both hard rock and heavy metal. There's no reason these sources shouldn't be used. Now stop adding unhelpful edits. --Scieberking (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic not said LZ is progenitors of hard rock , "The first seeds of heavy metal were sown in the British blues movement of the '60s, specifically among bands who found it hard to adjust to the natural swing of American blues. The rhythms became more squared-off, and the amplified electric instruments became more important, especially with the innovations of artists like the Kinks, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and the Jeff Beck Group. Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources." You change the firt paragraphy withou concensus Paulotanner (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the content after reaching consensus and placing a message on the talk page for a almost a week. Your statement "Allmusic not said LZ is progenitors of metal" doesn't make any sense. AllMusic was just founded in 1991, is merely an online guide for consumers (not a scholarly resource), however Britannica Encyclopedia is:

With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).

Secondly AllMusic credits Led Zeppelin as the ancestor of hard rock the same way it does for heavy metal: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. From

So stop adding unhelpful edits and reverting my edits now. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You broke the concensus! Allmusic says http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 “while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music.” The Led Zeppelin does not fit these characteristics. It’s not exuberant, chest-thumping party music.

Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. The Led Zeppelin fits this characteristic riffs are stand-alone melodies.

Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Here is clearly shown that the LED is not parent of hard rock.

Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock ofthe Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed.”

The allmusic is not saying that the LED is hard rock, but says that the hard rock that grows from “the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin”. Setting the template for much of what followed.”

And yet he claims to be 7 times the band a heavy metal band see: 1) The Allmusic itself in its definition of heavy metal points Led Zeppelin as the first metal band ([Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655] says: Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources.). 2) "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound." Source: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1

3 Black Sabbath Biography:

Tony Iommi Biography: "Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal." Source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

4) NWOBHM: The New Wave of British Heavy Metal re-energized heavy metal in the late '70s and early '80s. By the close of the '70s, heavy metal had stagnated, with its biggest stars (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath) either breaking away from the genre or sinking in their own indulgence, while many of its midlevel artists were simply undistinguished, churning out bluesy hard-rock riffs. The NWOBHM kicked out all of the blues, sped up the tempo, and toughened up the sound, leaving just a mean, tough, fast, hard metallic core. It didn't make any attempts to win a wide audience — it was pure metal, made for metal fans. Perhaps that's the reason why it's at the foundation of all modern-day metal: true metalheads either listened to this, or to bands like Metallica, which were inspired by bands like Diamond Head. Source:http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760

5 Judas Priest Biography: Judas Priest was one of the most influential heavy metal bands of the '70s, spearheading the New Wave of British Heavy Metal late in the decade. Decked out in leather and chains, the band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin, as well as adding a vicious two-lead guitar attack; in doing so, they set the pace for much popular heavy metal from 1975 until 1985, as well as laying the groundwork for the speed and death metal of the '80s. source:http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse 6 Iron Maiden Biography: Known for such powerful hits as "Two Minutes to Midnight" and "The Trooper," Iron Maiden were and are one of the most influential bands of the heavy metal genre. The often-imitated band existed for over 30 years, pumping out wild rock similar to Judas Priest. Iron Maiden have always been an underground attraction; although failing to ever obtain any real media attention in the U.S. (critics claimed them to be Satanists due to their dark musical themes and their use of grim mascot "Eddie"), they still became well known throughout the world and have remained consistently popular throughout their career. Iron Maiden were one of the first groups to be classified as "British metal," and, along with Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and a host of other bands, set the rock scene for the '80s. Source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3ifyxqe5ldae 7. Allmovie: The Song Remains the Same Plot Synopsis by Clarke Fountain In 1973, the seminal rock band Led Zeppelin, one of the founders of the music genre known as "heavy metal," went on tour and performed in Madison Square Garden. This documentary has concert footage, including the 23-minute-long version of the song "Dazed and Confused." The film also shows the musicians at home, pursuing some of their hobbies including drag-racing. The concert coverage also has scenes revealing what took place backstage, and a discussion of the theft of the band's cash during their visit to New York." Source: http://www.allmovie.com/work/the-song-remains-the-same-perf-158994 8. John Boham Bography: “Across the ensuing decade, the band ruled the heavy metal landscape, and Bonham's drumming was a key part of their appeal.” Source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hcfrxqy5ldte~T1

“British rock band that was extremely popular in the 1970s. Although their musical style was diverse, they came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal. “ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/334473/Led-Zeppelin

The Encyclopedia Britannica can not be taken into account by contradicting. She opens the first paragraph talking about heavy metal. The UK is not facing the music as Allmusic. And is not a publication focused on music, and reflects the contradictions and the discussion here fought. Unlike the All Music Guide is clear in not set at any Led Zeppelin as a precursor to hard rock. Even as the precursors are Jimi Hendrix and others as quoted in the text.

The kerrang is one of the most reliable sources. It has always been focused on the heavy metal and look what they say: Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal! 40 years ago this week a little known British band released their eponymous debut album and single handily changed the face of music forever. That band was Led Zeppelin and the genre they subsequently spawned became known as heavy metal. In this week's Kerrang! magazine we celebrate as metal turns the big four oh. Source: http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html

Chad is a longtime music journalist specializing in heavy metal and currently residing in Charlotte, North Carolina. Though he may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. Experience: Chad has been involved in metal for over 20 years. He writes or has written for several national music publications including Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, Loud Fast Rules and more. He's done hundreds of interviews over the years with members of bands such as Judas Priest, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Queensryche, Sepultura, In Flames and more. In addition, Chad has covered events like Ozzfest, Warped Tour and the New England Metal and Hardcore Festival. He's also worked in radio for the past two decades at stations all over the country. From Chad Bowar: I've been a metal fan since the early 1980s and have really enjoyed bringing my passion for and enjoyment of metal to this site. Heavy metal fans are some of the most knowledgeable and passionate people around, who aren't afraid to make their opinions known. Let me know what artists and genres you'd like to see featured here. Your input is always welcome, and my goal is to make this one of the main sites metal fans go to first when they want information about heavy metal. From the hair bands of the '80s to the most brutal and underground bands of today, all genres and styles of metal have a home here. What HE says: “Although there are debates among experts, most consider groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple to be the first heavy metal bands” Source: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_history.htm

When Giants Walked the Earth: A Biography of Led Zeppelin When Mick Wall's "When Giants Walked the Earth" was published in a hardcover edition last year for the U.K. market, it contained some timely commentary about their highly successful one-night show staged at the end of 2007. The author notes that Plant, who had been interested enough in the making of a re-released The Song Remains the Same movie and soundtrack that year to actually sit in, thought the Led Zeppelin reunion show ought to be a proper farewell from the band. Wall says Plant had a bigger say in what songs would and would not be included; gone were songs that were "too heavy metal," and he would do "Stairway to Heaven" but only buried in the middle of their two-hour set, not as a finale or an encore. Source: http://www.amazon.com/When-Giants-Walked-Earth-Biography/dp/0312590008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264460961&sr=1-1

Hammer of the Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga The members of Led Zeppelin are major deities in the pantheon of rock gods. The first and heaviest of the heavy metal monsters, they violently shook the foundations of rock music and took no prisoners on the road. Their tours were legendary, their lives were exalted—and in an era well known for sex and drugs, the mighty Zeppelin set an unattainable standard of excess and mythos for any band that tried to follow them. They were power, they were fantasy, they were black magic. No band ever flew as high as Led Zeppelin or suffered so disastrous a fall. And only some of them lived to tell the tale. Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0061473081/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

biography at Roling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography

VH1 - HISTORY OF HEAVY METAL http://www.vh1.com/shows/heavy_the_story_of_metal/episodes.jhtml People Magazine: December 20, 1976 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15249041/Led-ZeppelinPEO-19761220-ISSUE People Magazine: August 27, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 9 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074422,00.html The Book Hammer of the Gods by Stephen Davis http://www.librarything.com/work/335340 HEAVY METAL BIBLE http://www.metalbible.com/heavy-metal-bands/l/led-zeppelin-2.html

Roling Stone Magazine: STEPHEN DAVIS (Posted: May 20, 1976) "Led Zeppelin's seventh album confirms this quartet's status as heavy-metal champions of the known universe." http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/224305/review/5945483?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview CHARLES M. YOUNG (Posted: Oct 18, 1979) "Back when Led Zeppelin was setting the heavy-metal standard"http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/197643/review/5944431?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview KURT LODER (MTV) (Posted: Jan 20, 1983) "Coda is a resounding farewell from the greatest heavy-metal band that ever strutted the boards."http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/165410/review/5945716/coda MICHAEL AZERRAD (May 20, 2003) "The Holy Grail of heavy metal"http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/15323568/review/6039344/led_zeppelin Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters, Nirvana) Posted Apr 15, 2004 12:00 AM "Heavy metal would not exist without Led Zeppelin, and if it did, it would suck." http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940050/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_14_led_zeppelin Paulotanner (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice how the sources of heavy metal are always more detailed, with timelines, quotes, while the hard rock are always superficial. There is no date for the appearance of the word hard rock while the word heavy metal is widely documented associated Led Zeppelin.

Wikipédia itself hard rock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_rock#Beginnings_.281960s.29 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(February 2009)

	This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2009)

http://www.alternativemusic.co.za/info/genres-hard-rock.php This site is not reputable or even relevant. Showing only a partial view. This site was never mentioned in any reliable source.

Wikipédia uses and abuses Allmusic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music “The first heavy metal bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple attracted large audiences, though they were often critically reviled, a status common throughout the history of the genre.” Note the number of times that led zeppelin is quoted in the article. The Allmusic calls the heavy metal band not a hard rock band that influenced metal. Following the allmusic that call METAL band. “Deriving from the genre's roots in blues music, sex is another important topic—a thread running from Led Zeppelin's suggestive lyrics to the more explicit references of glam and nu metal bands.” “Led Zeppelin lyrics often reference Lord of the Rings as well as other mythology and folklore, such as in the songs "The Battle of Evermore", "Immigrant Song", "Ramble On", "No Quarter", and "Achilles Last Stand".”

How to take seriously the hard rock sources if they do not have dates? Highlight a phrase but see the rich part etymology in metal article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Etymology

“Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin “ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Origins:_late_1960s_and_early_1970s

“Led Zeppelin defined central aspects of the emerging genre, with Page's highly distorted guitar style and singerRobert Plant's dramatic, wailing vocals.”

Still wiki itself call Led Zeppelin a HEAVY METAL band again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal he New Wave of British Heavy Metal (frequently abbreviated as NWOBHM) was a heavy metal movement that started in the late 1970s, inBritain, and achieved international attention by the early 1980s. Sometimes compared to Beatlemania,[1] the era developed as a reaction in part to the decline of early heavy metal bands such as Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.

films that were box-office hit about heavy metal: We Have the film Some Kind of Monster Metallica, where the Father of Lars Ulrich explains the rise of metal in England with Led Zeppelin to the days of Metallica. We are hit with the audience and critical Metal: the headbanguer's Journey (2005) showing that the hard rock bands have emerged since the early metal. The film also shows the Led Zeppelin as early metal and not hard rock. Please look at movie infos: [Definitive metal family treehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey#.22Definitive_metal_family_tree.22] "The chart from the film documents Dunn's view on the progression of 24 subgenres of metal that have spawned over time, while also attempting to list the prime examples of bands that fall into each category. Below is a typed version of that chart, which can be found on the second disc of the film's special edition DVD package.  The film's flow chart of metal genres Early metal (1966−1971) Cream; Jimi Hendrix; Blue Cheer; Deep Purple; Led Zeppelin; MC5; Mountain; The Stooges; Black Sabbath"

Note that the hard rock as we know it is a result of the first heavy metal bands in the film family tree. The same definition of Allmusic: “hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar. “ More legitimate and respected sources point out that the Led Zeppelin was a heavy metal band that influenced hard rock. Led Zeppelin was never one of the first hard rock bands. In the metal Led Zeppelin is one of the pioneering bands of the same. Led Zeppelin was never one of the first hard rock bands. In the metal Led Zeppelin is one of the pioneering bands of the same. they were the first band to set the metal. Led Zeppelin did not create the hard rock that already existed. already the dominant format of metal designed by Led Zeppelin. Allmusic not called Led Zeppelin progenitor of hard rock, on the contrary, he argues that the riffs of Led served to hard rock, AND The Allmusic reference several times the band as heavy metal. Even in his description of heavy metal, in Led page and many others (Tony Iommi, NWOBHM, Iron Maiden, John Bonhan, Judas priest). And do not recognize the value of Allmusic as resource is at least force your point of view.

The old phrase is the one that best applies to the sources. Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant(vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin), and John Bonham(drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre.[9] Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[10] also incorporated rockabilly,[11] reggae,[12] soul,[13]funk,[14] and country.[15] The band did not release the popular songs from their albums as singles in the UK, as they preferred to develop the concept of "album-oriented rock".[4][16]

And without doubt the most serious. Scieberking are distorting the article based on a unique and exclusive source undirected music. Trying put your POV without concensus. He denies the sources reliable and tidy sites without value as sources. Ignores the fact that they are directed to research sources of music that are constantly being updated. Unlike encyclopedias written by non-specialists. If the car breaks took him to a mechanic and not a dentist. Here's the problem on Wikipedia, the editors do not know how to filter trusted information.. In addition to distorting the article Hard Rock allmusic who speaks in several places that Zepp is a metal band and only one says that their riffs influenced hard rock. note the difference between the riffs have influenced hard rock, where it already existed, to be the first real heavy metal band. Once again history is ignored in this wikipedia. The Zepp allmusic metal DEFINITELY metal band that defined the central issues. There is no consensus HERE because the article had a stable for years and was changed without other opinions. One single source (non musical) against many musical sources. Led Zppelin made hard rock but that already existed. Yet the sources point out Led Zeppelin as the band creator of heavy metal. You even removed the sources allmusic that attest to this. History is being erased by a POV. Paulotanner (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm neither trying to erase the history nor adding a WP:POV. You seriously need to read WP:POV and WP:V. I've removed NO sources. There were five previously and now are nine (four added by me). Led Zeppelin has been credited as one of the ancestors of both hard rock and heavy metal by AllMusic as well as other sources I've cited. Why are you just making a hodge-podge of AllMusic links over and over again. That does not prove anything. Watch out the article citations or the excerpts from the citations above that clearly say Led Zeppelin is the direct progenitor of both hard rock and heavy metal. To argue that the band had no influence on the development of hard rock is highly illogical and wrong. You're edit-warring with multiple editors and most of your contributions have been disruptive of which more than 70% were reverted by other editors.

I'm adding the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard for seeking a dispute resolution. Until then, please don't modify the article. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic doesn't says "progenitors of hard rock" It says HEAVY METAL. Hard rock already exist before Zeppelin. The hard rock will exist without Led Zeppelin. Allmusic doesnt say "progenitors" of hard rock, And you erase all allmusic references to heavy metal. Then withou concensus you CHANGED THE STABLE VERSION erasing history. THE BAND IS REGARS HEAVY METAL, allmusic and other sources are clear. Never the band is called by allmusic like "progenitors" of hard rock. Paulotanner (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are "progenitor" of hard rock? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Paulotanner (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Several metal links from allmusic are ERASED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340296474&oldid=340256563

I really don' understand if alllmusic quote more than 5 times LZ = heavy metal and quote about hard rock: "while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar."

Seem clear Led Zeppelin is not a progenitor of hard rock, is a father of heavy metal, because hard rock ALREAD EXIST before Zepp and your contribution is "setting the template for much of what followed". The hard rock exists before Led Zeppelin and became known withAc]DC, Van halen, Aerosmith, not Led Zeppelin. Atention to: while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies' Led Zeppelin is HERE, in riffs function as stand-alone melodies NOT "exuberant, chest-thumping party music". Progenitors of hard rock???????? hard Rock progenitor are Jimi hendrix, Jeff Beck, Yardbirds. Paulotanner (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't seem to know how to read "edit diff". I said "There were five previously and now are nine (four added by me)". --Scieberking (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I find these genre arguments utterly pointless but I do have to question the notion that Led Zeppelin were "one of the progenitors" of hard rock. According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released? Piriczki (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read the above conversation: They (Led Zeppelin) are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. Their sound has been imitated by bands from Black Sabbath to Nirvana. They also inspired hard rock bands to include acoustic elements in their music and were among the first to experiment with Indian and North African music. Page’s style—both his solos and riffs—has served as an important model for most rock guitarists, and Bonham is often cited as the model for metal or hard rock drumming. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin). Susan Fast, a highly respected music scholar, musicologist, and academic, is the author of that article. One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not real hard rock] in bands such as Cream and Jimi Hendrix Experience. It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock. --Scieberking (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE: "According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Scieberking is in POV see that he broke a concessus many times: title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339528061&oldid=339483085

Britanica not serve as a reference to omit the story that shows other parents of hard rock. And Scieberking erase the link to allmusic pages see the link 4 [2], 5 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=340316313

He ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, but your single source open with: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655

He is manipulating the information in a disruptive under the eyes of all. It clears the external references to allmusic and change history. Using this absurd reference who call Led Zeppelin as progenitor of hard rock. But reading the 1 paragraph of your absurd quote: "lthough their musical style was diverse, they came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal." He copy and paste only what interests you, promoting POV. No reputable sources. he changes a stable version of this page. Paulotanner (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede

I have trimmed the excessive fluff from the opening of the lede and also the citation farm which is unnecessary and against WP:LEDE guidelines. Here are the references if anyone should want to yse then in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede doesn't make any sense without the inclusion of those sentences. You're removing an entire well-referenced paragraph! --Scieberking (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it makes a lot more sense now, it was silly and excessive previously, I will ask for a RFC if you disagree? Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, please ask for a WP:RFC. Until then, please keep it to the current revision by me. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your lede suggestion logically critiqued: The bands [is it the plural of "band"?] guitar-driven sound and individualistic style [what individualistic style? unexplained and confusing...] drew from many sources [what sources?] and transcends any one genre [what genres and/or what any one genre(s)?].

Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC about the lede

There has been an edit war that went to a couple of noticeboards that I was not involved, that is where it was brought to my attention, I had a look and the dispute was about a couple of descriptive words in the lede, I felt this was actually making the lede very poor and full of pointy claims, I trimmed the lede to remove the excessive claims that were causing the edit war and there were also excessive citations in the lede being used to support these unnecessary claims, my edit has been reverted by one of the two users involved in the edit war, I feel that my edit solved the problem that was causing the edit war and also removed the need for the citation farm that was created to support the claims, my edit is here...

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin), and John Bonham (drums). The bands guitar-driven sound and individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. The band did not release the popular songs from their albums as singles in the UK, as they preferred to develop the concept of "album-oriented rock".

and the reverted edit is here..

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin), and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also incorporated rockabilly, reggae, soul, funk, and country. The band did not release the popular songs from their albums as singles in the UK, as they preferred to develop the concept of "album-oriented rock".

Comment from the reverting editor

• Please watch out above for a logical critique of Off2riorob's suggested lede. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

References

LIES He erased this references 5 and 6 see history and compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=340316313#cite_note-about.com-0 References

^ Chad Bowar, "Heavy metal timeline", About.com ^ Heavy Metal. BBC.com ^ Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Warner Home Video, 2005. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin Biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 2008-11-11. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 ERASED by him! ^ http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke ERASED by him! ^ a b "Led Zeppelin Biography". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2009-09-09. Paulotanner (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

opinion as regards the two versions of the lede

Please if you would, comment as to which version is preferable and more closely complies with WP:LEDE . Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I also vote for the current version. I not only personally agree with it, but it is inclusive enough to cover all arguments. And speaking of arguments, the people in this lengthy "heavy metal" genre discussion have put a great amount of intellectual effort and passion into the discussion, but we have to ask ourselves if this kind of controversy will ever find a resolution. I don't think it will. That's what makes genre discussions so tricky - it's usually a matter of opinion and genres themselves have very loose and vague definitions. And things get even trickier for bands like LZ who willfully transcend/ignore genre labels. It's time to call a truce in this intellectual arms race. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment has been copied to the relevant section above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

: OLD and FAITHFULL VERSION I disagree because current version is FAKE and erase links/history and put one single source as true source, Worts erase THE HISTORY: Britanica not serve as a reference to omit the story that shows other parents of hard rock.

He ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, Allmusic says more than 5 times heavy metal and He cross all quotes.

He is manipulating the information in a disruptive under the eyes of all. It clears the external references to allmusic and change history. Using this absurd reference who call Led Zeppelin as progenitor of hard rock. ANY SOURCE CALL PROGENITORS OF HARD ROCK: JIMI HENDRIX, CREAM, JEFF BECK. AND mANY, MANY CALL LED ZEPPELIN A FATHER OF METAL. "According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Scieberking is in POV see that he broke a concessus many times: title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339528061&oldid=339483085 Britanica not serve as a reference to omit the story that shows other parents of hard rock. And Scieberking erase the link to allmusic pages see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=340316313#cite_note-2

Erased reference number 5: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Erades reference number 6:http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

look at the hard rock of the page allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 This page does not call them parents of hard rock.

But reading the 1 paragraph of your absurd quote: "lthough their musical style was diverse, they came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal." He copy and paste only what interests him, promoting POV. No reputable sources.

I vote on the version that is faithful to history and the most faithful call the Led Zeppelin one of the first metal bands. The story never called the parents of hard rock. He changed the page without consensus. Taking advantage of a source other than music to talk about music. Worse deleting the links referenced in allmusic. This is a correct and stable version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=340316313 Paulotanner (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Not uninvolved; ineligible editor

• Vote for second option/current version - : I vote for the current version. I not only personally agree with it, but it is inclusive enough to cover all arguments. And speaking of arguments, the people in this lengthy "heavy metal" genre discussion have put a great amount of intellectual effort and passion into the discussion, but we have to ask ourselves if this kind of controversy will ever find a resolution. I don't think it will. That's what makes genre discussions so tricky - it's usually a matter of opinion and genres themselves have very loose and vague definitions. And things get even trickier for bands like LZ who willfully transcend/ignore genre labels. It's time to call a truce in this intellectual arms race. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree because current version is FAKE and erase links/history and put one single source as true source, Worts erase THE HISTORY: Britanica not serve as a reference to omit the story that shows other parents of hard rock.

He ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, Allmusic says more than 5 times heavy metal and He cross all quotes.

He is manipulating the information in a disruptive under the eyes of all. It clears the external references to allmusic and change history. Using this absurd reference who call Led Zeppelin as progenitor of hard rock. ANY SOURCE CALL PROGENITORS OF HARD ROCK: JIMI HENDRIX, CREAM, JEFF BECK. AND mANY, MANY CALL LED ZEPPELIN A FATHER OF METAL. "According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Scieberking is in POV see that he broke a concessus many times: title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339528061&oldid=339483085 Britanica not serve as a reference to omit the story that shows other parents of hard rock. And Scieberking erase the link to allmusic pages see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=340316313#cite_note-2

Erased reference number 5: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Erades reference number 6:http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

look at the hard rock of the page allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 This page does not call them parents of hard rock.

But reading the 1 paragraph of your absurd quote: "lthough their musical style was diverse, they came to be well known for their influence on the development of heavy metal." He copy and paste only what interests him, promoting POV. No reputable sources.

I vote on the version that is faithful to history and the most faithful call the Led Zeppelin one of the first metal bands. The story never called the parents of hard rock. He changed the page without consensus. Taking advantage of a source other than music to talk about music. Worse deleting the links referenced in allmusic. This is a correct and stable version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&oldid=336375418 Paulotanner (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Not uninvolved; ineligible editor

I actually don't mind the current version, personally. Paulotanner's right, though, that hard rock did essentially exist before Zeppelin. (Albert Mond (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I think the lead paragraph has several problems and needs to be rewritten. As I mentioned above in Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions, it is difficult to justify Led Zeppelin being a progenitor of hard rock when that music style was already in existence and recognized as such when Led Zeppelin's first album was released. Despite the source, I just can't get past the chronology. Also regarding the Britannica article, it contains contributions from two other editors and the "Editors of Enclopedia Britannica" (which are site visitors) so it can't be ascertained whether that particular passage was written by the primary author. Susan Fast wrote a book on Led Zeppelin, In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music, which doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock although it does make a reference to Led Zeppelin as the progenitors of heavy metal.

The rest of the paragraph has problems as well. The part about "indiviualistic style" is vague and uninformative. Not releasing singles in the UK is noteworthy but I don't think it is of such importance that it belongs in the lead. Also, the mention of "album-oriented rock" might be confusing to some readers in the US where this commonly refers to a radio format popular in the late 1970s. I think the contributor meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format. Piriczki (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard Rock was in its "earliest" and "nascent" form until Led Zeppelin's eponymous album and The Who's Live at Leeds. Zeppelin, may not be the initiators, but undoubtedly are one of the progenitors. Please see the sources below. Secondly, according to their policy, all user contributions to Britannica are peer-reviewed, so there sin't any reason we can't use the source. Thirdly, we're not discussing the authenticity of the Britannica article here- it is purely authentic. They'd remove if it was false and misleading. Susan's other book is totally irrelevant here. Moreover, "album rock" and "album-oriented rock" are two entirely different things. --Scieberking (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Fast's In the house of the Holy says: "The song (Black Dog) represents a defining moment in the genre of hard rock, combining the elements of speed, power, an artful and metrically clever riff". An ancestor is the one who is the root of, or "defines" a specific thing. So your claim that "(her book) doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock" is absolutely wrong. --Scieberking (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the current edit is heavy on links but I do like the lede as is. Too many people think "Heavy Metal" due to their radio songs and numerous "heavy metal" copy acts, when in fact that were extremely multi-dimensional. Sdiver68 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

FRESH START

Off2Rio, a fine and experienced editor, has asked that the lede be re-examined. I would suggest thinking of this in terms of, say, a Rolling Stone article. Having 17 cites in the second sentence looks silly, and I have to tell you that I was listening to Led Zeppelin when it came out and I was...oh crap...do I want you to know how old I am?

Well, not as old as they are. So, instead of fighting about what they are (were), because we are inflamed with our passions about how truly unusual/exquisite/awesome and of course influential the band was....let us put this article into something that will make FA status. This is the sort of article that could make it to that point. All we need is a small amount of cooperation.

Everyone has made valid points. We need not exclude one or other, just incorporate them.

And, my favorite, by far, is Kashmir. Oberonfitch (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

Please read....

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

There is no excuse to have a long list of citations to support some simple comment in the lede. They are a rock band, there is nothing controversial about that, if you want to add modern thinking and expand on that then do it in the body of the article. keep the lede nice and simple and draw the reader to read the whole article dont blast him with excessive claims, he will run away. Off2riorob (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My reply to Paulotanner

You are urging me to reply in a stricter tone. You apparently don't seem to know anything about music, Wikipedia or anything. Just know how to show ignorance and cause disruption. Without reading any discussion, and ignoring the valid, authentic points, you're writing the same thing again and again while reverting the edits of other editors. That does not make any sense and is ridiculously deconstructive. You've a long history of disrupting articles on Wikipedia and more than 70% of your edits have been reverted by other editors. You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer, among others, and all your edits were reverted. Now you're trying to disrupt Led Zeppelin article. An RFC was submitted to ask for suggestions from "other editors" so you're not eligible to vote.

Here's a revision by Camaron as of 17:53, 12 January 2010 when nobody got involved with that hard rock thing. Notice these five sources:

1. ^ Chad Bowar, "Heavy metal timeline", About.com
2. ^ Heavy Metal. BBC.com
3. ^ Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Warner Home Video, 2005.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin Biography". Allmusic. http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
5. ^ a b "Led Zeppelin Biography". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography. Retrieved 2009-09-09.

These five sources still exist and I've removed NO sources. You can only attempt to fool people when I'm not around. Secondly, what you think is an absurd source? Britannica Encyclopedia? The most authentic and scholarly encyclopedia ever written?? The hard rock was in its developmental stages until Led Zeppelin 1 was released, which is often cited as the true beginning of hard rock. Thirdly, who's "removing" other ancestors of hard rock, or even heavy metal? The sentence clearly says "one of the progenitors of", not "the one and only progenitor of". Let me again clear this with a couple of sources:

• Allmusic: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. More

• AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Hard Rocks roots [not hard rock itself] can be found in the early Garage Rock and Psychedelic Rock.... British artists such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Who are considered by some to be the godfathers of hard rock [not hard rock bands], these bands defined the style of the genre..... It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock. More

• About.com: Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock or heavy metal. More

• A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by Piero Scaruffi: Hard-rock was still based on blues, like rock'n'roll had always been, but it was a faster, louder and stronger kind of music, that buried the suffering of the black people under thousands of decibels.

One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock.

However, Led Zeppelin (2), formed by ex-Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page and Alexis Korner's protege` Robert Plant, were, first and foremost, children of the blues. However, the jams of Led Zeppelin I (oct 1968 - jan 1969) introduced a hysterical approach to black music that even blacks had never dreamed of (culminating in the epileptic zenith of Communication Breakdown). Led Zeppelin's sound was an extension of electric blues that relied on three factors: a faster, almost frenzied, pace; a loud and scorching howl that almost parodied the black "shouters" and had psychotic overtones; forceful guitar playing of great imagination with mystic overtones. The melodrama of songs such as Whole Lotta Love (1969) was continuously ruptured by guitar riffs and delirious vocals. Cream had played blues-rock as brain music: Led Zeppelin played blues-rock as body music.

• According to Wikipedia itself: Led Zeppelin (1969) and The Who's Live at Leeds (1970) are examples of music from the beginning of the hard rock genre. The blues origins of the albums are clear, and a few songs by well-known blues artists are adapted or covered within them.

• According to AllExperts, a sister site of About.com, which keeps the older version of Wikipedia's hard rock article (later modified and removed references of by User_talk:98.113.216.32), "Hard rock came into existence when British groups of late 1960s like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin mixed the music of early British rockers with a particular kind of Blues-rock, typified by an aggressive approach to the blues. Led Zeppelin's eponymous first album, released in 1969, is a good example of heavy blues-rock which represents the true beginning of the hard rock genre".

• With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).
  

All sources, being most authentic and WP:RS, are quite clear now.

---

UPDATE: A few more semi-legit sources:

• Along with Deep Purple, as being considered as the first hard rock band, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin's first album in 1969 revealed the real beginning of Hard rock milieu to the world. More

• While I don't subscribe to the oft-repeated gospel that Led Zeppelin invented heavy metal—the MC5, Steppenwolf, Ted Nugent's Amboy Dukes, the Stooges and many others were all mining the same musical territory at the time Zeppelin launched—there's no question that they largely defined and solidified the hard rock style. More

--Scieberking (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

First you changed the first paragraph without consensus. In fact, you broke the agreement signed that preserved its stable. Lykantrop: "It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."-- "

Two. You no consensus to change the text still deleting the following sources: Heavy Metal in Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Iommi biography in allmusic with explicit reference to Led Zeppelin is one of the creators of heavy metalhttp://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

Third. "Britannica Encyclopedia? The most authentic and scholarly encyclopedia ever written??"

Britannica is not specialized in music, contains a partial view that omits the HISTORY. She has the value of a allmusic which is targeted at music, and even has details like magazines Kerrang, Hit Parader, Creem, Roling Stone, Metal Hammer. Not bibliography for MUSIC. It can be excellent just any subject, but when she trangride the HISTORY it loses its value.

"The hard rock was in its developmental stages until Led Zeppelin 1 was released, which is often cited as the true beginning of hard rock." The Hard Rock has existed without the Led Zeppelin I with Hendrix, Jeff Beck, The Who and he existed with or without Led Zeppelin. At the time of Led Zeppelin 1 and there were already looking cites Led Zeppelin 1 as true beginning of the hard rock is making value judgments and again ignoring the story. Led Zeppelin 1 is cited as the beginning of heavy metal and the difference is striking.

"Thirdly, who's "removing" other ancestors of hard rock, or even heavy metal? The sentence clearly says "one of the progenitors of", not "the one and only progenitor of". Let me again clear this with a couple of sources." Answered by fellow up on that page: ""According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" Therefore if he did not create the hard rock it is not "one of the progenitors" of it and keep it in wikipedia called original research. Or better change history. Stop cutting and pasting sentences and let people know the TRUTH. Paste the complete sentences. I'll bold the facts show that Led Zeppelin is one of the parents of hard rock. showing that he exist without Led Zeppelin. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 "Hard rock is a term that's frequently applied to any sort of loud, aggressive guitar rock, but for these purposes, the definition is more specific. To be sure, hard rock is loud, aggressive guitar rock, but it isn't as heavy as heavy metal, and it's only very rarely influenced by punk (though it helped inspire punk). Hard rock generally prizes big, stadium-ready guitar riffs, anthemic choruses, and stomping, swaggering backbeats; its goals are usually (though not universally) commercial, and it's nearly always saturated with machismo. With some bands, it can be difficult to tell where the dividing line between hard rock and heavy metal falls, but the basic distinction is that ever since Black Sabbath, metal tends to be darker and more menacing, while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar. Arena rock also became a dominant force, stripping out nearly all blues influence and concentrating solely on big, bombastic hooks. During the '80s, hard rock was dominated by glossy pop-metal, although Guns N' Roses, the Black Crowes, and several others did present a grittier, more traditionalist alternative. Old-fashioned hard rock became a scarce commodity in the post-alternative rock era; after grunge, many guitar bands not only adopted a self-consciously serious attitude, but also resisted the urge to write fist-pumping, arena-ready choruses. Still, the '90s did produce a few exceptions, such as Oasis, Urge Overkill, and the serious but anthemic Pearl Jam." Let's be very clear he says that he comes before the led Zeppelin with Cream, Hendrix and Jeff Beck. He says that it is influenced by punk, he says he came up with The Who, Stones and the respect of Led Zeppelin he merely speaks of an aspect of the band and not the band ("the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin"). If Allmusic say: "Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s" then it already exists, LED ZEPPELIN IS NOT ONE OF THE PROGENITORS. The logic is confirmed in the preceding sentence: "pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group". You are forcing your point of view distorts the logical interpretation of the text. In addition to suppressing the more than 5 sources that cite Led Zeppelin as heavy metal and not hard rock.

"AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Self-explanatory Source worthless. You're showing sources of no relevance. Are worth anything written on the Internet now?

http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm in discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please You wrote:"The First Source is NOT highly reliable and written by a semi-professional, Chad Bowar, who may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. About.com guides are notoriously controversial and they hire amateurs, more clearly "freelancers who work online and set their own schedules, giving them the flexibility to work when it suits them". But You fall in contradiction using the same About.com. You use "A Brief History of Rock Music" Omit this title that says much about the content of the text http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm and omits "Although there are debates among experts, most consider groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple to be the first heavy metal bands." Let's compare the curricula, as Chad Bowar with over 20 years of experience aprece not worth anything? Your "A Brief History of Rock Music" Http://rock.about.com/bio/Tim-Grierson-46190.htm Against http://heavymetal.about.com/bio/Chad-Bowar-17543.htm? Ask people read and compare the curriculum of both and draw your own conclusions. It is clear that Tim omits the story to summarize the history of rock and in the case of hard rock in one single band: Led Zeppelin. This is the font that you bring? When it suits you speak evil of about.com. And yet you use a summary of the rock for defending your point of view?

"A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by" "One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock." Who is more respectable this book or the allmusic? Who is more respectable this book or the biographies of Led Zeppelin? The biographies of Led Zeppelin are more specialized or not? The biographies of the LZ they call heavy metal right? This book can be considered more relevant than than the blockbusters films Some Kind of Monster, Metal a Headbanguer's Journey? This book has the level of research and know-how of a Kerrang, Hit Parader, Metal Hammer? Why their sources without regard must be taken into consideration given your POV, and mine that are more than 30 years there are not taken? Why Wikipedia is much more consistent and referenced in the article heavy metal? Because the article hard rock loads: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2009)" Why you omit facts, breaks the story and does not respect other opinions. Let's see: 98.113.216.32 Says: “The citations refer to heavy metal, not hard rock, which is appropriate since hard rock predates Led Zeppelin by quite a bit, thanks to the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Hendrix and many others.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339483085

98.113.216.32 Says:”I don't care what Susan Fast says. She's objectively wrong and her cite is the only one that says something so appallingly ignorant.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339633935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339989416&oldid=339980499

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339994623&oldid=339992496

Showing you erasing allmusic source who points to heavy metal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340256563&oldid=340001920

Again erase two allmusic's heavy metal sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340316313&oldid=340296474

POV again against History and Allmusic http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340452794

8 sources realible erased by you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340456747

ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, Allmusic says more than 5 times heavy metal and you cross all quotes.

How many editors you are in edit war by imposing their point of view? Who do you think you fool omitting the History? The history show manyprogenitors not Led Zeppelin. The wikipedia will use from untrusted sources to promote their personal interests?

"You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer" And to finalize your ad hominem. Can you read? read what I wrote I'll introduce sources of ALLMUSIC, I regarded reputable sources, not use of summaries of rock or personal blogs pra defend my point of view. Read if you can Them Crooked Vultures compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Them_Crooked_Vultures&diff=prev&oldid=327024384 with Them Crooked Vultures in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kbfpxz9gldhe Styles Pop/Rock Hard Rock Alternative Pop/ Rock Alternative/ Indie Rock Stoner Metal Heavy Metal

Blue Cheer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Cheer&diff=prev&oldid=324707410 compare with Blue heer in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifqxqw5ldde http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2690

This is POV or not? "I actually don't mind the current version, personally. Paulotanner's right, though, that hard rock did essentially exist before Zeppelin." (Albert Mond (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

"I think the lead paragraph has several problems and needs to be rewritten. As I mentioned above in Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions, it is difficult to justify Led Zeppelin being a progenitor of hard rock when that music style was already in existence and recognized as such when Led Zeppelin's first album was released. Despite the source, I just can't get past the chronology. Also regarding the Britannica article, it contains contributions from two other editors and the "Editors of Enclopedia Britannica" (which are site visitors) so it can't be ascertained whether that particular passage was written by the primary author. Susan Fast wrote a book on Led Zeppelin, In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music, which doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock although it does make a reference to Led Zeppelin as the progenitors of heavy metal. The rest of the paragraph has problems as well. The part about "indiviualistic style" is vague and uninformative. Not releasing singles in the UK is noteworthy but I don't think it is of such importance that it belongs in the lead. Also, the mention of "album-oriented rock" might be confusing to some readers in the US where this commonly refers to a radio format popular in the late 1970s. I think the contributor meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format." Piriczki (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Greetings. I just wanted to bring up a couple of arguments to Scieberking. First thing is, that the band's opinion about their genre is not relevant. The band's opinion is not a third party reliable source. Many bands do not agree with their categorization as heavy metal, including AC/DC, Motörhead among others. The other thing is: how do we know that the "allegation" (as you call it) that they are a heavy metal band is disputable? Your attitude is that the heavy metal genre "beyond any doubt, is disputable". I personally do not know whether it is disputable or not. To find out the answer, whether the heavy metal genre is disputable or not, we need to look up to the sources: To illustrate one point, I will pick one of the above presented reliable third party sources: Allmusic Led Zeppelin biography. This source states: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." This is not only an explicit statement that they are a heavy metal band. This statement also includes the word "definitive", which is crucial to illustrate this point. This word indicates that the author is conscious of other bands that can be heavy metal (or are disputably heavy metal), but that this one is the "definitive" one: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." Except for this source, many others can be found stating defacto simply "Led Zeppelin are heavy metal": "one of the first heavy metal bands" (BBC), "the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer" (Rolling Stone) To illustrate the other point, we need reliable third party sources that state something in the manner of "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all". But don't forget that statements such as "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin"[1] do not support this point. That statement says that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin was the first metal band, or not the first one. But it does not say that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin play heavy metal at all. A source that states that Led Zeppelin is hard rock and blues rock also does not support this point, as well as multiple such sources don't" (WP:SYNTHESIS)

"So to illustrate your point, the only thing you need to do, Scieberking, is to present third party sources, reliable at least as Allmusic, BBC or Rolling Stone, that state explicitly "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all".-"- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"don't understand how fan's opinion is relevant. Try to elaborate on some statements written by proffesional music journalists. A fan's statement such as "Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal" does not seem to be reliable enough for an encyclopedia. You should try to come up with a counterweight to Allmusic, BBC, Rolling Stone "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band", not some random fan's opinion. If you fail to do so, there's nothing much more I can discuss.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"What you brought up, Scieberking, is one musician's opinion and, again, the band's attitude. That is not really satisfactory for me. One more thing that I wanted to say is: Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources. I think I've said pretty much everything. Most likely, I won't be online for the next couple of days so have a good luck with the discussion. Cheers.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"It is unspeakable ignorance to suggest that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock. Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 and didn't release an album until 1969. Hard rock was already thriving thanks to the likes of the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience and many others from the Amboy Dukes to Steppenwolf to Blue Cheer to Iron Butterfly and more." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Jimi Hendrix Experience are a hard rock band. They released all three of their albums before Led Zeppelin released anything. The Who are a hard rock band. Their live sound is as hard rock as hard rock gets, long before Led Zeppelin existed. Cream are a hard rock band. They formed, released their music, and broke up before Led Zeppelin released anything. Any reasonably informed rock aficionado knows this." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not invent what I enter in wikipedia, I use the most reputable sources. Unlike you that distorts facts and did not follow any contrary opinion. Tsc, tsc, you are in fight againt all... and ERASE reputable sources. Paulotanner (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Striking Sock

Lede: Compromise

How about this: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music."

Also, we can cut some of the (nine) references that are currently being used. Maybe five could be taken and other four be removed. Please share your thoughts. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the revision when there was 17 refs, which is overkill. Per WP:LEAD there shouldn't be many (if any) refs in the lead. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. That edit was by Paulotanner and his IPs such as 200.219.132.37. --Scieberking (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just choose the strongest two or three and take the rest out, anything that is not controversial or anything that is also cited in the body of the article doesn't need a citation in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look:

With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music.

You might need to view the code so as to see which references I've selected to use and/or omitt. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well its locked now, this article is locked again I would leave it locked and get a couple of experienced writers from the project and rewite it in a decent way, raise it up to good article status and then keep it locked, with flagged revision only. As it is now the article is like a toy being tossed around.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands: lead sections shouldn't require citations, per WP:LEAD. Any important information must be sourced in the article body. Sort out the article body first, then figure out what to do with the lead. Also, you shouldn't have to sort something five times. If you're citing something five times, it's either overkill or you're really trying to push something. For general comparison, compare this article to one of the band Featured Articles I've written, R.E.M.

As for the whole debate about hard rock and metal: metal has been extensively studied and written about to the point where it's very well-defined, while hard rock has historically been treated more as a broad term that applies to any sort of aggreesive rock (not only metal, but punk annd certain prog and alt-rock artists). I also think it's funny that one of the sources used in this lead example is Allmusic, which also goes on elsewhere on its site about how important Zeppelin is to metal. Just some things to think about. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that's what I'm saying. Zeppelin is the pioneer of both heavy metal and/or hard rock. That's what the sources say. Like the About.com dude Tim Grierson says, "Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock OR heavy metal" More.

REM is a totally different kind of animal, though. The bigger the thing, the more controversial it gets. Thank you very much for your opinion, Wesley. --Scieberking (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned R.E.M. as an example of what a rock band article should look like. Also, the band are comparable both saleswise and influence-wise. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes , perhaps but that is all content for expansion in the body of the article, for the lede its enough to say they are a rock band taking from multiple genres or whatever it was. Have a look at the Bob Marley lede. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also for that matter the R.E.M. article, how many citations do you see? Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Off2riorob, but we need not to discard the fact that Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock and heavy metal. Something should be there like the second sentence of Bob Marley's article mentions "Marley remains the most widely known and revered performer of reggae music, and is credited for helping spread both Jamaican music and the Rastafari movement to a worldwide audience", plus he played very limited genres mostly reggae and ska. Marley's article's semi-protected for months, while the Zeppelin article's been a target of the worst type of vandalism for years. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for semi on Marley and I was the person who worked on it to keep it as a good article a few months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great Off2riorob! Scieberking (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thats one of the things you learn if an article gets harassment and a lot of vandal type edits and you are trying to make it good then at the right moment ask for semi and then when it expires and it happens again ask for semi again but for a length of time, Gordon Brown is protected until after the election. With flagged revisions on the way soon ish there is a bit more acceptance especially with blp's that they need protection, especially with highly viewed articles like this, it gets ten thousand views a day, this article need to be good to reflect the wikipedia in a good light.Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for when the page protection expires, the term "certified units" was deleted from the lead somewhere along the way and needs to be restored to the passage "including 111.5 million in the United States." As it reads now, one could easily get the wrong impression that Led Zeppelin sold 111.5 million albums in the US. Piriczki (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you Piriczki. Why don't you use editprotected tag? --Scieberking (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)