Talk:Led Zeppelin

Folk rock

Just picking brains here about something: it's well-known that Zep loved and was heavily inspired by contemporary British folk artists like Roy Harper, Bert Jansch, Sandy Denny, etc., but has anyone ever classified them as "folk rock"? For starters, Allmusic doesn't. Is the inclusion of folk rock in the infobox because there are lots of sources calling them folk rock, or is the rationale simply that they incorporate folk into their rock? Because it's not the same thing, and I doubt any overview of the folk rock genre would include Zep. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic is crap. It lists pure "Blues" as one of the two genres of Led Zeppelin. So are you going to call them a "Blues band"? I copy paste this from archives:

• "Where's the sense of reviewing an album filled with material that every right-thinking human being must already own? Well, let's not forget those over 80s and under 20s out there who may have yet to experience the full majesty of the band who set the benchmark for stadium-packing epic blues/folk rock. And, on the eve of the most hyped reunion gig of all time, Mothership lays it all out in chronological form". Cynical re-packaging, maybe...but oh, what a back catalogue! by Chris Jones of BBC

• "A real test of endurance, for sure. This is rock music, pure and simple, and they were very much a rock band. They weren't a one-trick pony - a number of their tracks have a distinctly folk-rock feel - and they really enjoyed what they did. And almost all of their songs are about love, in one form or another". Jon Downs of Blogcritics

In addition, "The Routledge companion to Britain in the twentieth century" by Mark Clapson describes them as, "LED ZEPPELIN - Rock, blues and folk-rock band".

Judaispriest (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Blogcritics a reliable source? Also, note the context of the quote--"have a distinctly folk-rock feel"--not quite the same thing as "is a folk-rock band". Additionally, are there any sources that discuss Led Zeppelin as part of the history of folk rock? After all, Smashing Pumpkins have been called a grunge band and Radiohead a Britpop band on occasion in offhand manner, but any source that actually deals with the genres will explain why these are inaccuracies. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, some songs are folk rock. Please listen to Led Zeppelin III; almost all of them are folk rock. Folk rock is a fusion between the folk music and rock music; folk music describes the music for the "folk"; looser, fruity songs with (mostly) the acoustic guitar as the lead instrument and instruments like harmonica, accordion, sitar, bagpipe and many more; yes that's apply. It would be better if you would think logically and not view another website (please stop this "is-this-reliable-or-not?"-crap); this is crazy...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This "'is-this-reliable-or-not?'-crap" is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. "Listen to the album" isn't good enough. Also, "fruity songs" . . . ? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen. Blogcritics might not be a highly reliable source, but still a WP:RS according to the criteria. Ask any time on noticeboard. Secondly, who the heck is calling them a strict "folk-rock band". Beatles played psychedelic rock and that doesn't make them a "psychedelic rock band". I totally agree with GreatOrangePumpkin. They played some folk rock songs, and the genre is rightfully listed there. Scieberking (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whining does not help, WesleyDodds. Blogcritics has editorial oversight. Blogcritics is not largely user-generated. Satisfies every policy. Everybody on Noticeboard will agree. It runs on the same model as NY Times' About.com. Besides that, its only one of the sources provided. Scieberking (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about whining? Assume good faith. It's a basic question. Also, beyond the reliability of this one source, it's really important to get a broader examination of sources, because three examples (two of which are reviews) aren't all that convincing when it comes to determining if there's consensus by sources declaring them a folk rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Initially, as a semi-retired editor, I was hesitant to get involved, but just can't tolerate nonsense. I would repeat my previous suggestion; putting "Rock" as the sole genre in the infobox just like the other major articles do. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, in simpler words, some of their material is folk rock, but that doesn't make them a strict "folk rock band" or a purist "folk group". Led Zeppelin defies categorization. For the record, there's been a consensus to keep "folk rock" in the infobox after lengthy arguments (see archives) but I still suggest the simple Rock label. As per your wish, here is an "overview of the folk rock genre (that) would include Zep", penned by well-known American music journalist Richie Unterberger who also happens to be a leading contributor at Allmusic:

• GREAT MOMENTS IN FOLK-ROCK: LISTS OF AUTHOR FAVORITES

• Even your Allmusic junk says, "its [Led Zeppelin's] areas of expertise were heavy metal, hard rock, blues-rock, and folk-rock". Divinity: Led Zeppelin. Notice how accurately this order is being preserved on Wikipedia!

• David Fricke, former managing editor of Rolling Stone and one of the most well-respected rock critics, mentions "folk rock" of Led Zeppelin in his article Led Zeppelin Reunite The Full Report From David Fricke.

Here's a few more reliable sources:

• Led Zeppelin III Review: An underrated work by any reckoning by Greg Moffitt of BBC

• Led Zeppelin 1970: A Banner Year for Page, Plant and the Gibson Les Paul Standard by Ted Drozdowski of Gibson

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, nobody is arguing that Led Zeppelin didn't incorporate folk/folk-rock into their records. The question is, whether that folk-influence necessitates us adding "folk rock" in the genres tab. In your own words, "that doesn't make them a strict 'folk rock band'"—then why list folk rock at all?

I don't mind listing just "Rock" in the genres, although my first preference would be to include heavy metal as well—the band's defining genre.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Scieberking. I'm not trying to be difficult or antagonistic about this, so there's no reason to use wording like "Even your Allmusic junk". This is just something that needs to be addressed with some thought at some point or another on the road to getting this article to FA-level quality. As for the "subgenres/just Rock" issue, I'd be down with Indopug's "Rock, heavy metal" suggestion, although we should probably link to "hard rock" too. The point of the genres field is to link to pages that provide additional musical style context--the rock, metal, and hard rock articles all devote sizable portions to Led Zeppelin. We also need to consider the categories at the bottom of the page, which everyone seems to forget about. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that calling them a strict folk rock band would be untrue, but I also think all the above sources easily qualify the mention of "folk rock". "Gospel" is listed in the infobox of Dylan's article. Does that make him a gospel singer? Hard rock, heavy metal, folk rock are all subgenres of Rock, right? So listing "Rock, heavy metal" would be just plain stupid. Scieberking (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not stupid per se; it's simply general and specific at the same time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it would. It is okay the way it is. Scieberking (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is - not many people will argue against the fact that the band made some folk rock songs in their career. There are songs spread throughout their career in that genre, as well as on most of Led Zeppelin III. I don't think the "Genres" section of the infobox necessarily needs to be something the band were labelled as, but rather an indicator of what their music was labelled as. Whatever the consensus comes to, I strongly believe hard rock should not be touched (contrary to what some in this discussion are proposing), as it's pretty much the genre that the majority of their music falls under and it would be a complete oversight to omit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the material on LZIII drew from contemporary British folk music, not folk rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Elvis is more commonly known as a rock 'n' roll singer, but should "country" and "gospel" be removed from the article's infobox? Of course not, because he did some stuff related to those genres. I'm finished with the discussion. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To repeat:The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How does "rock, heavy metal, hard rock" sound then? The change from the status quo being that two very specific sub-genres (blues-rock and folk rock) are replaced by the overarching rock genre. This de-emphasises elements of the Zeppelin Sound that were present in only a few songs and albums. The prose, of course, can cover the blues- and folk-derived aspects of the band's music.—indopug (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. It has the added benefit of actually following WP policy on requiring reliable sources and not giving undue weight to minor theories and opinions.LedRush (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I can support that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I support his too. Seems fine to me.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that they haven't done even one heavy metal album (as opposed to songs), your suggestion is very one-sided and misleading. Considering that they have their foundation in blues, and which they never discarded, it is essential to include that one too. And considering that Led Zeppelin III and Led Zeppelin IV don't contain any heavy metal or hard rock (except for possibly "Immigrant Song") but almost exclusively blues rock and folk rock, it would be for the best to include folk rock as well. So basically, as it looks now, but with blues rock and folk rock - the genre box at its current state is a representation of 25% of their sound, not to mention that heavy metal and hard rock is impossible differentiate between in Led Zeppelin - they're the same, they overlap. Revan (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GreatOrangePumpkin, I saw on your talk page that you're a pianist and expert in music theory. How can you then I agree with not having blues rock in the genre box? Their trademark is exactly that, the blend of rock and blues. Don't you think the current status is very narrow, one-sided and misleading? Revan (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the term "rock" in the infobox describes the different, not much used genres like folk rock and blues rock. These where mostly used in the beginning of its musical career, like in the debut album or the second, where hippie music (folk rock, blues rock, everything all together) were standard musical genres and covering classic blues songs totally normal. As indopug explains, merging "blues rock" and "folk rock" in "rock" is understandable, since they both are sub-genres of the "rock" genre. In contradistinction to the currently termed genres, the genre "hard rock" is self-evident and has been used from the beginning to the end of its career. "Heavy metal" was used mostly at the beginning (I, II, Physical Graffiti), and is therefore important, because Led Zeppelin's heavy guitar sound, fast, rough drum beats and Plant's strong voice power is an indication, that they were one of the first bands with heavy metal sound. There were much bands influenced by Led Zeppelin, including Black Sabbath. If you hear the albums "Black Sabbath" or "Paranoid" you will hear an element of resemblance in concord, timbre, rhythm, melody, dynamic and form. Short: Hard rock because its main genre; Heavy metal because important for other bands; Folk rock and blues rock was merged to "Rock" because sub-genre, not much used and sometimes merged together.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know all of the albums you mentioned by heart, and I know that you exaggerate Led Zeppelin's importance on the two Black Sabbath albums you mentioned. I also know that Black Sabbath discarded the blues element right in the first song of the first album, and elaborated on the already existing "hard" sound of the era, transforming it into real heavy metal, by, among other things, detuning the guitar and bass to a low C#. But this isn't a discussion about Black Sabbath. Your first point is not true; blues rock and folk rock were used extensively, by no means less than hard rock or heavy metal. For all I know, their harder and heavier themes were most often than not used within the confines of blues. The blues element was never discarded by Led Zeppelin, but prevalent in all of their albums. They always had the standard blues songs in their albums, from the first one to Physical Graffiti. The same goes for folk rock - all of their acoustic songs - never discarded, but prevalent in all of their albums up to Physical Graffiti.

You assign each of the terms in the info box its own distinctive function: hard rock is supposedly "self-evident" and works as its own genre, but really, it is as much a sub-genre of rock as folk rock and blues rock; heavy metal is supposed to work as an indicator to Led Zeppelin's importance for other bands in that genre, and not as a description of their own sound; blues rock and folk rock should be merged together because they're "not much used", but which they are, very much so even. I don't see the point why readers who scan through an article should make these associations and differentiate between terms' function. They shouldn't. The info box should present a quick summary of what the band sounds like and not be a representation of something needlessly complex that only a few users think sounds fair. The inclusion of blues rock and folk rock (instead of just rock, maybe), in addition to hard rock and heavy metal of course, would make it 10 times more clear and accurate. Revan (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that the info box looks like how I suggested. I don't know if someone changed it without notifying, or if one of you did it. But I think it looks much better like that. What do you think? Revan (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the old order was way more logical and relevant. See the IP attacks, that's why... Scieberking (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see... then it would be better to revert it like it was before. I realize that "Rock" is too generally, so the reader don't really know which sub-genres are meant. I don't care if it is just "rock" or "blues rock and folk rock", but, you see, the readers don't like it that much.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean and tried to state in the above discussion. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume "the old order" is when blues rock and folk rock are included? Revan (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, way more logical and relevant. Revan (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find tons and tons of RSs which call Zep a heavy metal band, but I doubt you can find one that calls them a folk rock band. But even that's not the real point. Per the agreement above, and per WP:UNDUE, I have to disagree continue to disagree. Folk music is such a minor influence outside of the third album, and it is not substantiated by RSs.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello LedRush. I think I've made detailed replies to these "heavy metal band" / "folk rock band" and "not substantiated by RSs" arguments. Please see above. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but those replies have also been refuted above. It simply undue weight to put in the info box when the best you can do is find the sources you've found.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. More clearly refuted by lame arguments. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Folk rock is warranted by all of their acoustic songs. Check their catalogue. Revan (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would rather check RSs than conduct original research.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is obvious. Though wikipedia is built on original research whether one likes it or not, whether it is against its policies or not. Some things are certainties. No one would dispute folk rock as genre. It's painting by numbers - one draws a line between their acoustic lines (among them Stairway to Heaven) to folk rock. It's not really arguable, in a logical sense. Revan (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you have, against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer, I still say we should just follow WP policy on this.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, NO such policy exists on Wikipedia. Radiohead is not an "electronic music group". Elvis Presley is not a "gospel singer". Bob Dylan is not a "country singer". And these are all featured articles... Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy I invoked was WP:UNDUE, though I would now point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each of those statements seems eminently more realistic than this one (well, maybe not Elvis, but I barely know his music, so I can't really comment either way). All I know is that if you have thousands and thousands of sources which call a band a "rock", "hard rock" or "heavy metal" band, and the only RSs you can come up with for folk rock say that they have some songs influenced by folk rock, it seems pretty obvious to give UNDUE weight to an opinion. Just deal with this in the text.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mostly for Deletion/ Creation discussion and have you read this "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" and other guidelines that clearly point out that the policy itself is hardly relevant here? How about WP:SENSE and WP:IAR? Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like those two as well, but only the second one helps your argument.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Explain how I "against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer" and why I shouldn't be insulted by the extreme choice of words. I would call this an attack, by your standards. Revan (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You told me the answer without any proof at all. You merely stated that it was obvious. To make points, usually you need to provide some sort of basis for that opinion.LedRush (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: the first of the two links also helps his argument. Don't dismiss it. As I've said, having folk rock is painting by numbers, mere common sense, and doesn't need to be dismissed because someone keeps score of how many times the other genres have been cited. Isn't that illogical? I'd say it is. You could have a billion sources saying heavy metal without having them excluding folk rock. The genres are in no competitive game against each other, even though some would like to think so. Revan (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the genres are in competition. As I've argued above, I don't believe that there are enough sources to merit inclusion in the infobox of a genre which has influenced a handful of songs. I can find sources that say Led Zeppelin was influenced by reggae, progressive music, and Caribbean music, but I'm not sure that they should go in the info box (though progressive music is makes more sense to me than folk rock).LedRush (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't either. Of course reggae shouldn't be included because they made one reggae song in Houses of the Holy, or Caribbean music because another song shows an influence. But folk rock hasn't influenced only one song, or only a handful of songs. The genre, as a representation of their acoustic songs, is one of the main undercurrents of their sound, like blues rock and hard rock, throughout many albums. That can easily override the lack of journalists spelling out "folk rock" to the reader. Revan (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate genre-labeling, and most respectable bands hate their music categorized within a genre as well. But when you have Joan Baez influencing LZ to record "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", not to mention songs like "That's the Way" and "Going To California" in their catalog, I would object to labeling them as "Folk Rock" about as much or as little as I would object to labeling them as "Heavy Metal". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, nothing can override things not being in RSs on Wikipedia. That's one of, if not the, central tenet of wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"...it reminds its maker of 1970's Led Zeppelin III, an epic LP that augmented the iconic band's hardriffing blueprint with more reflective folk-rock leanings." Is "leanings" too vague to include them as folk-rock? Doc talk 22:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, absolutely. In Scieberking's and Revan's, no. I just don't see having a handful of songs with folk-rock leanings or influences as enough to include folk rock in the info box. If gives undue weight to the influence, imho.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Led Zeppelin’s mix of blues, folk and rock brought them huge success...". Are we talking about reliable sources or opinion? Because you're quite right that it only needs to be in reliable sources (with citations) for inclusion. Again, I despise labeling bands, infobox or no, but I seriously doubt that "Heavy Metal" has any more place in the infobox than "Folk" or "Folk Rock" when talking about the mighty, diverse Zep. Doc talk 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention folk-rock or blues-rock at all. It does support the idea that these genres influence their music, but it doesn't come close to justifying it in the info box, in my view. And if you don't think that people call Led Zeppelin heavy metal, just do a google search on "Led Zeppelin" and "Heavy metal". I don't think that Zep is metal, but everyone else in the world seems to.LedRush (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're both for grand personal statements with no real credibility to back it up. OK, just to align with the course of personal opinions flowing, I share the classic artistic viewpoint of not putting much importance on labeling an artist's music - everyone must have "their own sound". Simultaneously, I find it quite pretentious. It is as if the artist in question's creative process gets diminished and crippled if fans and media labels his or her music. At least "conscious", "caring" fans think it does. A tad ridiculous. Music can always be labeled to some extent, as an idea, an indication, a vague definition of the sound. I have my own band, and I always say we play rock towards heavier things like metal, somehow experimental and progressive, and I refer to a few bands that are influences. Why should someone else's labeling bother me? It doesn't cripple us when we rehearse. Of course, having endless discussions about some mere sub-genres in a box is also ridiculous when taking a step back and reflecting.

As for your objection to my statement, LedRush. Wikipedia already has tons and tons of original research in their millions of articles, good ones and featured ones. Do you need a RS that states that a chair is a basic commodity with four legs, a back and a seat? No, I'm not saying our discussion has the same level of certainty. I'm just saying it's painting by numbers in lack of a thousand sources. We have two. As for Led Zeppelin and folk rock songs, the number of songs very much exceed "a handful". I counted 18 from their first to Physical Graffiti that can easily be labeled folk rock. This is a consistency in their sound shown throughout many albums and not an eclectic leaning which they're also known for, like reggae. I don't know how much you guys know about actual music, but never downplay blues' role in Zeppelin's music. Consider it an advice for discussions in your real lives. Revan (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... when you refer to "you both" and "real life", I would hope you're not referring to me, Revan. I've been playing bass guitar for roughly 25 years: and you do realize I'm actually agreeing with you for the most part, right? I was listening to Led Zeppelin before many of you were even out of diapers: and I know plenty about actual music. Correct me if you weren't referring to me; but I could truly care less if there's going to be a lame genre-war over this. Let the freakin' infobox follow whatever consensus develops. I've said my piece... Doc talk 07:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, that personal attack on Doc and me was unwarranted. Also, Doc and I have backed up our statements with examples and citations and are haveing a quite civil disagreement. You've merely stated your opinion more emphatically and done nothing to prove your point, while engaging in uncivil behavior which pisses people off. Please try and be constructive.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound harsh in my first sentence. I just meant that it is hard to establish credibility here at wikipedia since we're all anonymous. Meaning, we could be PhD's or college dropouts. As for "real lives", I just meant your... real lives outside wikipedia. No "get a life" insult. Yes, I agree with what you've said, Doc. Didn't mean any disrespect. It never hurts that people knowledgable about the subject at hand (music) instead of mere wiki policy preachers enter discussions. I would value your input on my list below. Ledrush, on the other hand, I most often don't agree with. He's very keen on dropping the attack blame on me as soon as I use the word "you" in my posts, resulting in me dismissing him as keenly. He is also keen on downplaying my posts and contributions here by downplaying what I say, deliberately missing my points. Allegedly, I do nothing to prove my points, as opposed to him, allegedly: he has "proven" that Zeppelin only have a handful of folk rock songs by stating that they only have a handful of songs with folk influences. That makes a lot of sense.

Maybe you missed it, LedRush, but I said I identified 18 songs in their first six albums that I think qualify as folk rock songs. I'd say that qualifies as "constructive" despite your allegations. I think I have made clear that I'm not speaking nonsense when I talk about music, and Doc has proven he doesn't. I think your statement about a handful of songs falters, but feel free to give me your input on this list: from Led Zeppelin I: "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", "Your Time Is Gonna Come", "Black Mountain Side"; from Led Zeppelin II: "Thank You", "Ramble On"; from Led Zeppelin III: "Friends", "Gallows Pole", "Tangerine", "That's The Way", "Bron-Y-Aur-Stomp", "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper"; from Led Zeppelin IV: "The Battle Of Evermore", "Stairway To Heaven", "Going To California"; from Houses Of The Holy: "The Rain Song", "Over The Hills And Far Away"; from Physical Graffiti: "Bron-Yr-Aur", "Black Country Woman". LedRush mentioned a few sources that dropped "reggae" and "Caribbean music" as influences, possibly about "D'yer Mak'er" and "Down By The Seaside". Also, "Kashmir" displays large influences from middle eastern music. If those songs are included, the list increases to 21. Additionally, there are some other candidates, like "Four Sticks" and "When The Levee Breaks", but let's ignore those.

Of course I don't want to cause a genre war or lead the discussion into a dead end. Consider this list an attempt at leading the discussion a small step forward. Revan (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, I am afraid you're just not getting it. I don't care that you think that 18 songs have a folk rock influence. I would exclude almost half of those songs out of hand, but that's not the point. First, merely having songs influenced by a genre does not make that genre important enough to be in the info box. Second, we need reliable sources to make the statements. Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either.LedRush (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting it. I just don't want to adjust to your slightly obsessive preachings. You keep writing condescending about what I say. But please, for once, fucking motivate what of everything I wrote is "not very believable" and why. And why would you exclude almost half of the songs? I'm curious about your musical ability here. And please, don't refer to any sources. Try it. Revan (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we discuss the songs you have proclaimed have fold influences, and, in fact, we agree that all 18 of them do have a folk influence. Look at my last post to see why we can't include the information in the info box. You're getting tied down in wanting to argue about the individual songs instead of actually discussing how to get the content in the article. Please, please try and substantiate your argument in some way other than your belief on the matter. Doc and Scieber found sources and we discussed their contents based on WP policy. You are merely stating your opinion in angrier and angrier tones.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because you keep making ignorant opinion-based statements, incapable of motivating them. I find that outright ridiculous. The sources were discussed but you failed to reach a conclusion. We're three who think that two sources, together with common sense (acknowledging that there are more than "a handful" (here we have you conducting original research, although unexplained and unbelievable) of folk rock songs in their catalogue - I made a list of which I think qualify, and Scieberking and Doc both think the genre is one of their main genres) are enough for including the genre in the info box. Evidently, you're the only one making an effort to stop the inclusion by keeping score between the number of sources saying folk rock, and sources saying heavy metal, as if the sub-genres are in competition against each other in stand-offs. Oh, and with GreatOrangePumpkin, we're four; he supported it above. Why do you pick the wikipedia policies that suit you and exclude those which don't? Evidently, wikipedia acknowledges common sense as being useful (whadayaknow) when users disagree about sources. At this point, we have zero sources speaking against folk rock, but only one user. We have four users supporting the inclusion, and two sources naming folk rock. Revan (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose I can convince you to actually address my points, could I?LedRush (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose I can convince you to actually address my points, could I? Revan (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Could you please provide a concise question/point for me to address? In case you're forgotton mine and can't find them above, they are: "First, merely having songs influenced by a genre does not make that genre important enough to be in the info box. Second, we need reliable sources to make the statements". Please see above for context.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about this? Jon Bream (http://www.jonbream.com/Jon_Bream/Home.html) wrote Whole Lotta Led Zeppelin: The Illustrated History of the Heaviest Band of All Time, published in 2008. These are a few samples from his book: "Page also picked out British folk melodies on acoustic guitar. A riff bandit, Page literally lifted several tunes outright from folk and blues artists." (p. 37); "Jones was invaluable in helping Led Zeppelin develop their sound beyond the blues and folk riffs employed on the early albums" (p. 40); "Led Zeppelin turned its debut into a sprawling mission statement, a blueprint for all future Zeppelin albums in the way it recasts Chicago blues, British folk, Eastern sagas, and progressive rock." (p. 47). "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is called a "folk song" on the same page. I don't know if this book has been referred to here before. Revan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for your first quote, no one besides you have said anything about songs being "merely influenced by a genre". We have all made clear that folk rock is one of their main genres, and I find that 18 songs on their first six albums "qualify as folk rock songs", and not merely influenced by folk rock. I have repeatedly asked you to motivate your statements about why my original research about the songs is "unbelievable", why you would dismiss half of them, which handful of songs you're actually referring to. Disperse your vague statements. Revan (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point to the RSs which state that folk-rock was a "main genre" for Led Zeppelin. If we can get a couple of those, the conversation would be over. Unfortunately, all I've seen is reliable sources that say the Led Zep incorporated some folk into some of their songs.

And, please, stop with your arguments on the songs. Your opinion of whether or not a song is a folk-rock song is completely irrelevant, as is mine. Just because you have descended from the gods with this answer clear in your brain, doesn't mean we can use your word as gospel. We need reliable sources for all statements on Wikipedia. For the very first time, you have provided a few. But they still don't do want you want them to do. The term folk-rock isn't used, and even if it were, it would have to be pervasive enough to qualify with the literally thousands and thousands of sources which call Zeppelin's genre heavy metal or hard rock...otherwise we are putting undue weight on a minority theory.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Still with the stand-offs between genres. If you find opinions worthless, then don't bother calling them "unbelievable" if you won't back it up with an explanation. That would qualify as an attack by someone with a fragile sensibility. And how do you know what the source does or doesn't do what I want it to? Personally, I don't think a source can be more credible, according to wikipedia standards, or clearer about the importance of folk (hey hey, when a rock band uses folk, it becomes folk rock, it's like magic) in Zeppelin's music. But you really need it spelled out for you. You need some godlike (what's with the religious references you keep dropping?) reporter who bellows "Led Zeppelin is also a folk rock band!". Can't believe you dismissed this source so easily. Biased? Other users have accused you of being just that. Revan (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Imagery suggestion

For the main page Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin discography, and the picture for Wikipedia: WikiProject Led Zeppelin, I highly suggest using the portraits from the How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album). I believe that there are many similar portraits of concept art around the concept of that album's art. This gives a good, equitable look at each member of the band, kind of like the image for Wikipedia: WikiProject The Who.Hoops gza (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...Except the image you suggest isn't a free image, and you can't use album covers to identify anything but the album. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could use album covers the article would be full of them. Sadly they are not normally used outside of articles on the actual album.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)