Talk:Led Zeppelin IV

Question about title

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

Title I think that what it's called on the template and as the title of the article should match but as a simple matter of convenience, it's much simpler to write "Led Zeppelin IV" than "the untitled Led Zeppelin album from 1971". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong preference for untitled, just supporting the consensus. Of course consensus can change.--SabreBD (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the explanations. I was just wondering. Your work is greatly appreciated. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have an original copy of this album from the year it was released. On the label on the vinyl it very clearly says "Led Zeppelin IV". This whole phenomenon of it being untitled is nonsense that has been perpetuated for too long. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for boring facts with regards to music, so no need to bother trying. HairyNevus (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Remove heavy metal

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

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

"Heavy metal album"

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

• 17:18, 16 October 2013 ("folk rock" citing his own opinion)
• 14:46, 6 November 2013 (no explanation)
• 17:04, 6 November 2013 (cherry-picking genres from Allmusic's sidebar (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE#Sources to avoid)
• 17:53, 18 November 2013 (restoring his POV-based arrangement)
• 05:31, 19 November 2013 (opinion in edit summary: "Led Zeppelin is first and foremost, a hard rock band, and this album is no different from their de facto sound")
• 20:17, 29 January 2014 (again), 12:39, 31 January 2014 (another opinion: "it is ostensibly a hard rock album before anything else")
• and most recently 20:01, 31 January 2014.

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

You seem to be the one going against the long-standing consensus. I'm not disagreeing that it's a hard rock or heavy metal album, but your emphasis that it's a heavy metal album above all else is confusing to say the least, when 1.) the band is considered a hard rock group first and foremost (see any disagreement about whether Led Zeppelin is authentic heavy metal) and 2.) not every song of LZ IV would even be classified heavy metal. Christgau can say it's a heavy metal album, which is fine, but hard rock is a more broad, all-encompassing genre and heavy metal is considered the derivative form (if you go by the hard rock Wikipedia article), and it would seem to be common sense that the broader or less-specific genre be listed first. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be common sense for the most explicit quote from the more notable individual holding that interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE) to be given more weight. "The band is considered..." argument sounds like "(1) prefer monolithic labels rather..." from WP:GWAR, and you're lending your opinion again with your second point. Dan56 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've asked comments from Rhinestone K, Mlpearc, and Lewismaster, who I noticed have edited here recently. Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4, and I assert that this is yet another of Dan's pedantic genre arguments that is based unduly on just one source's opinion. Dan, please try to get your brain around the concept of using a preponderance of sources, and stop fixating on pushing only what one or two critics think among thousands of writers; I think Laser brain told you that last month. Anyway, Christgau lumps everything hard, or anything he thinks is hard in with metal, which he does not like or understand, and as such he is an obviously biased critic of the genre. What's troubling is that you push him like he's your dad, and its borderline POV. We should always strive to present a diversity of sources, and not blindly hammer on one source of many. No, Y2K isn't the genre warrior here; its most certainly Dan. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to find this "preponderance of sources" first before I can get my brain around it. BTW, Joe Gross from Spin and his list/guide to heavy metal albums is also cited (Led_Zeppelin_IV#cite_ref-34). How about I namedrop Tomica or Sabrebd while we're at it? More opinionated POV BS observed: "Christgau lumps everything hard", "he does not ... understand". So lame to start criticizing the source, who gave the album an "A" (wow! How biased of him ◔̯◔). And I'm sure giving undue weight to a "Rock Hall" description of the album in the lead is neutral. Because that's a "diversity of sources" ◔̯◔ Dan56 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I remind all of you that the same topic has already been discussed on this talk page, apparently without reaching a definitive consensus. In a very short time, using a simple Google search I found four professional reviews that does not cite heavy metal at all, but actually remark the variety of musical genres touched by Led Zeppelin in the album. I think that Lenny Kaye of Rolling Stone is as reliable as Christgau in his review [1]. BBC Music review is also of the same tenure [2], while Blogcritics review defines it a classic rock/blues album [3]. Common Sense Media calls Led Zeppelin hard rock pioneers [4]. Only Allmusic cites heavy metal as one of the genres played in the album, but not necessarily the most important. It is generally accepted that the music of Led Zeppelin and even more the live shows the band performed were fundamental for the development of heavy metal in the 70s and 80s. On the other hand, Ian Christe in his book Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal considers Black Sabbath as the first heavy metal band and not Led Zeppelin. The line separating the two genres, especially in those years, is so thin that maybe we should stuck with the words of Tony Iommi in the movie Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, who said that Zeppelin, Sabbath and the likes were all playing heavy rock and heavy metal was a journalistic invention that came later. On Wikipedia heavy rock = hard rock. Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Heavy metal" is cited three times in the article--Christgau's "heavy metal album", Joe Gross' Spin guide to heavy metal, and AllMusic's quote--all in Led Zeppelin#Release and reception. I don't see the relevance of how Led Zeppelin as a band is generally regarded, since WP:GWAR says to avoid "monolithic labels" like "Metallica = heavy metal". I get your point about the line being thin, but if that's the case, why has Y2kcrazyjoker4 been bothering with the edits highlighted above and made this an issue? Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are keeping the score, I gave you four reviews without heavy metal in them. Personally, I find the whole debate quite silly. As long as the different genres of the songs are cited in the infobox or in the article, it's fine with me. Lewismaster (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lewismaster. The genres that are currently in the infobox are an adequate representation of Zeppelin IV. I think we can be done with this. Rhinestone K (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why the album infobox genres don't simply match Led Zeppelin's band infobox genres... particularly when we have quotes like "a monolithic record, defining not only Led Zeppelin"... "this is the definitive Led Zeppelin"... and we have all of the band's genres (hard rock, heavy metal, blues rock, folk rock) more or less backed up by references in this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Lewismaster's position, which I think can be said to be the running consensus here. Dan is playing yet another of his endless: "I found sources that say what I want, so that's how's its gonna be!" games. Dan has problems a) understanding the meaning of a preponderance of sources, b) that a diversity of sources are a good thing, and c) that Christgau should not be pushed as the voice of all genres on Wikipedia. Zep were a hard rock band first and foremost, and this album is much closer to hard rock then it is to metal, which is actually a big stretch, IMO. Not everything that you find on google is an accurate representation of the facts, Dan. Sure, you have three sources that call it metal, but so many more do not describe it as metal. Do you see that point at all? Havn't you wasted enough time on this stuff yet? Are you really now arguing the order of genres in an infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

a) GabeMc has a serious problem separating subjective descriptions (which are genres) and concrete facts (which aren't genres). We're citing critics, dude, not Wikipedians who wish they were. b) so many more sources do not describe it as "hard rock", just like there are more sources that don't describe it as folk as there are those that do, so that's a silly argument to begin with. c) I clearly showed in my opening comments that I wasn't the one who began disputing the order. d) (for my amusement, since you're having a blast trolling me), I totally got you with this, since you didn't respond to it LOL. Are you really going to take what happened at AYE this personally? Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning AYE; that's old news and I'm not holding a grudge because I'm not an immature teenager; that's a lame strawman. I strongly dislike your serial genre warring and I think that you waste lots of good-faith editing time across a broad swath of articles. FTR, you didn't "school" me re Unapologetic, I just decided that trying to talk to you on a rational level is a feeble undertaking that yields nothing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I never used to word "school". And you really didn't have any way to respond to that last comment regarding Unapologetic. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

• "After all, 'Led Zeppelin IV' (a.k.a. 'Four Symbols', 'ZOSO', 'Untitled' etc.) may well be the definitive hard rock album of all time." (Eduardo Rivadavia). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimateclassicrock isn't a reliable source (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE#Sources to avoid) Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• "IV was their highwater mark, selling millions of copies and remaining a hard rock perennial." - Allmusic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You're citing the same critic (Erlewine) whose online review is already cited in this article. Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album ... is the most famous hard-rock album ever recorded" - Spin, 2002. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the same exact column reprinted in Klosterman's book, which Synthwave brought up above. That column is part of Klosterman's list of the 40 greatest METAL ALBUMS of all time for Spin magazine, in which he ranks IV second and writes "it's the defining endeavor for the band and the genre it accidentally created ... Zoso is the origin of everything that sounds, feels, or even tastes vaguely metallic".

• "From Led Zeppelin (1969), the group's first album, it was clear that heavy metal was just one aspect of their musical personality ... Their untitled fourth album, known variously as Led Zeppelin IV, Zoso, and the Runes LP gives a clear sense of the breadth of their expressive range." Popular Music in America: The Beat Goes On by Michael Campbell. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

An isolated remark about the band's "musical personality" plus "gives a clear sense of the breadth of their expressive range" equals "heavy metal is not exclusive" as much as it equals "hard rock is not exclusive" (you do realize this one-dimensional argument against "heavy metal" can be used against "hard rock"? No one's removing "hard rock" here dude). Citing Klosterman's article as proof of your point was a fail, since it revealed the book Synthwave brought up as a reprint of a metal albums list. But I did include it in the article ([5]), so thanks. All in all, this discussion has actually generated some decent additions :) Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not misuse the source I brought here. Klosterman doesn't explicitly call the album "heavy metal" but "hard rock". Also, did you ignore the following sentence : "Zoso is not Zeppelin's best album (that would be Houses of the Holy) or their heaviest (Physical Graffiti) or even their “most metal” (Led Zeppelin II)" ? Moreover, to be "the origin of everything that sounds, feels, or even tastes vaguely metallic" doesn't mean Zoso is a metal album. Synthwave.94 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Misuse"? The book you brought up is reprinting his column from this list of the 40 greatest metal albums of all time (the actual source) where it's ranked second, and you overlooked the line about how it's "the defining endeavor for the band and the genre it accidentally created". And I did in fact add Klosterman's quote about it being the "most famous hard rock album recorded". Moreover, to not be the band's "most metal" album doesn't mean it's not a metal album. I'd think to be included in a list of greatest metal album would mean it's a metal album. And Klosterman's track-by-track review appears to be an attempt to connect each song from the album to metal, one form or another, so these arguments to contrary seem to be backfiring. Dan56 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate seems to have devolved into how legitimately "metal" the album is. Let me be clear, I am not arguing for its removal, I just think "hard rock" (among other changes) needs to be first because it's the least controversial genre that this album has been identified with, it's the most broad and all encompassing of the ones listed, and the record more or less defines the band's overall sound. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Y2Kcrazyjoker4; metal should stay, but hard rock should be listed first. Synthwave.94, do you concur? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "hard rock" should be listed before "heavy metal". After all, I noticed all Led Zeppelin albums (and compilations) mention "hard rock" before "heavy metal". I don't see why Zoso should be an exception to the rule. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff existing doesn't justify anything, Synthwave.94. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well that's three to one so I'll assume that we agree that this is the current consensus and make that change now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@GabeMc, might not be the best thing for you to make that change, regardless of the out come, just saying. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mlpearc, Why not? Is there any good reason why I cannot edit this page to reflect the current consensus? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone other that Dan agree with his recent revert? Synthwave.94 or Y2kcrazyjoker4, do you agree with my edit or Dan's reversion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing Gross' Spin magazine guide from the prose isn't going to help your spiteful case. Neither will canvassing. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1) You cannot canvass people who are already involved in the discussion, and 2) I only removed that part to avoid using Spin magazine twice in the same paragraph. How many article do you control, Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you added your preferred bit from Klosterman's article twice (in the lead and again in "Release and reception") when I had already added it in "Awards and recognitions" since you seem to be forgetting it's a list of the greatest metal albums, and Klosterman follows it up with a track-by-track review connecting each song to some type of metal (Should we incorporate this into the article?) Remember, you dug this source up, not me. BTW, you wanted to use Erlewine twice, so two different critics from SPin is a problem? Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I see that no one responded directly to these points raised by me. How convenient. Dan56 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, stop imposing your point of view. A consensus has been reached but you're still struggling to keep "heavy metal" first in the infobox. I just realized it's not the first time you've got troubles associated to your genre warring behaviour. Your childish reaction is pathetic and you should learn accepting a consensus instead of thinking you're absolutly right. Christgau called Zoso a "heavy metal album" but he's not alone on Earth and "hard rock" has also been extensively used to describe the album. I totally agree with GabeMc edits and you should accept them instead of blindly reverting him. That said I think other editors should support the conversation to make you understand you're not alone on Wikipedia. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're being evasive. I clearly showed your Klosterman source supported "metal" as much as "hard rock", and that the both of you have ignored his track-by-track (where Klosterman connects each song to metal) and the fact that the column was part of a list of greatest metal albums. Then I responded to your last comment, where you cited other stuff, i.e. Led Zeppelin album infoxes. Perhaps instead of commenting on my character (genre warring behavior?) you can actually address my points and the content? I wont have anything against a consensus if legitimate concerns are addressed. Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What, in a nutshell, is your concern, Dan? Nobody is removing metal from the infobox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What's your concern? Nobody is removing hard rock. This was left unaddressed, so what else are either of you arguing? Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the sarcasm. I predict that if you continue in this way, that you will eventually be topic banned from editing genres. My concern is that the album is most accurately described as hard rock, so that should be listed before metal, which is a minority opinion. What is your suggestion, Lewismaster? Should hard rock be listed before or after metal? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Christgau calls it a "heavy metal album", Gross includes it in his album guide to heavy metal, and Klosterman named it the second greatest metal album before going into how each song is metal. Even Erlewine says it encompasses heavy metal. What's the argument apart from personal discomfort with "Heavy metal" being listed ahead of "hard rock"? If it's not too much to ask, perhaps proving "heavy metal" is a minority opinion? Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Guitar World: "By any name, Zeppelin's fourth effort is widely considered rock's Holy Grail, fusing hard rock, Celtic folk, boogie-woogie rock and roll and blues into one staggering, beguiling, epochal, masterpiece." Is this a matter of "Dan's sources trump everybody elses"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fusing", not "being", "hard rock, Celtic folk...", the writer in your source said. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by … Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Of course, the author's talking about the album being these genres (as in "consisting of"). The fusing of the genres creates something s/he considers a "masterpiece" – the latter being a qualitative term regarding the album's artistic merit, not a musical term. The author's not saying that these elements are fused into something new or different musically. Rather, it's a subjective statement on how this + that + other musical content = a highly regarded album.

I'm intrigued now. Because, if this statement is not to be viewed as a straightforward description of Led Zep IV's musical genres, then how is it you can view the following as a "simple statement" on All Things Must Pass's (emphasis added by me): "Mr. Harrison specializes in sad songs that step darkly through minor chord changes, delivered with a doleful catch in the voice. All Things Must Pass builds its big sound around a collection of typically modest Harrison tunes: downhearted, folk-rock confessions. The trick works. Inflated to operatic scale, numbers like Art of Dying, the gruff, gospel-tinged Hear Me Lord and Wah-Wah, a churning rocker in which Mr. Harrison trades lead guitar lines with Eric Clapton, are quite touching. The symphonic squall of these songs seems less about rock star hubris than Mr. Harrison's straining to express outsized emotions – sorrow, regret, longing, writ very large."

In other words, in the Guitar World piece, you're choosing to identify a departure in meaning with the idea of elements being "fused" on LZ IV, yet you don't register the departure (and/or the idea of an author progressing from his earlier point) when another album "builds its big sound" – builds – around songs in a certain genre. It's quite clear to me there's a transformation in that multi-sentence description of All Things Must Pass. With the single sentence in Guitar World though, there is no transformation/departure. To reorder the critical praise–musical genres combination: "The staggering, beguiling, epochal, masterpiece fuses hard rock, Celtic folk, boogie-woogie rock and roll and blues."

Apologies to others here – I'm conscious of appearing to hijack the discussion. (And this is only about one specific description of many, I know.) The issue over at ATMP seems relevant to this area of the discussion, that's all, and I've watched on over the last few months as similar discussions have filled album talk pages. JG66 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Like you said at ATMP, a better/more adequate source for the album's genre was needed when previously there wasn't. That discussion at ATMP was inactive between your last comment there and when you ended up adding the Leng source for those other genres, which was not contested by anyone. Before, Rosen's characterizations of the album's songs were the most explicit; in this case, sources like the critics I brought up below in #Poll explicitly characterize it as "metal" (I don't see Celtic folk being added to this article's infobox anytime soon based on your rationale, which I don't agree with--a "masterpiece" then to your point has nothing to do with an interpretation or analysis of the album's music but rather its quality). Every article doesn't have the same sources available to them, which is why you said you'd be looking for an "alternative source" and ended up finding one. Unlike ATMP, here there's a source (a track-by-track by Chuck Klosterman) basically saying each song on this album is metal. Also, I think GabeMc's point was to bring up the fact that there are sources that don't include "metal" in describing the album, but then again there are sources that don't do the same for "hard rock". Dan56 (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan, I think I made it clear above that interpretation of this sentence in Guitar World is a minor point in the whole genre discussion here. But it's an example of where your interpretation of text can differ so radically from others', from much of what I've seen. Just on articles I work on, I can think of three occasions where, in my view, you've clearly misunderstood the point being made (usually going for the more negative slant, I have to say). I'm surprised you can't see what I was saying above about the Guitar World piece; maybe you're not alone and others'll won't see it as I do. Fine, that's what the thread's for. The problem is, you're frequently – I don't think that's an exaggeration – imposing your interpretation over those of other editors, with the ubiquitous stick to what the sources say, and I don't think you interpret correctly what the source is saying much of the time. I'm not trying to give you a bad time – but you seem to have little compunction about giving others a bad time, you know. JG66 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time trusting editors who primarily cite their own opinions, like here where he claimed every song wouldn't be "classified as heavy metal", yet lo and behold someone with credentials to speak on the subject does. This discussion started because of one editor's constant revisions to the genre parameter in this article's infobox, as I showed above, citing their own opinion instead of an actual expert's interpretation. Frankly, statements like this don't help either. It's one thing not to agree with what sources explicitly say, but our point of views aren't relevant. This discussion and the others just leave me with the impression that there's a fan complex, especially with these old rock music articles. Dan56 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about old rock music articles. And if you've got any suspicions along those lines about what I contribute to Wikipedia, then please, bring it to my talk page – each and every point. (I'm only diverting from here because I'm embarrassed enough already about heading the thread off on a tangent.) But I'm talking about interpretation, comprehension, of points in reliable sources. And you've got a problem trusting other editors, yet … every editor has to trust you, and your judgment?

You could be right about an element of fan complex. But equally, a lot of (apparently) reliable sources also distort the picture – myths snowball, whereas the fewer, well-researched sources demonstrate that a commonly held view couldn't possibly be correct. We've got to trust fellow editors; it would be different if the article for every album in Rolling Stone's top 500 list or some equivalent was up at GA, but that's from the case, isn't it? I don't know how things are going with the Led Zep canon, or with Dylan, the Stones, etc, but I think I'm right in saying not a single Beatles album is a GA right now. How about we just get them all up to GA – that editors are allowed to dedicate their time to expanding the articles, without getting tripped up regarding comparatively trivial points like genres? I don't see how we can afford to be so picky, until articles like this and probably 100s of others are expanded. It's just negative c*** otherwise, and someone who might potentially take on 10 or 20 of that 500 gets scared off or plain bored.

Anyway, I'm embarrassed about adding walls of text here (when, "Levee Breaks" aside, I prefer Led Zep III). See you on our talk pages. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll

Support listing hard rock before metal

1. Support. - Christgau should not be used as the definitive source for all things genre related, and especially not for any music that is hard or heavy. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. "Hard rock" is the least controversial genre that the album is associated with and is the most all encompassing of the ones listed. There are also plenty of critics who have described the album as "hard rock" - of course an album as seminal in the development of the "heavy metal" genre will be recognized by a lot of critics, as Dan56 has demonstrated, but that doesn't mean it's the primary genre the album falls under. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. Klosterman's article is rather outlandish, claiming "Rock and Roll = hair metal", "Black Dog = rap metal", "When the Levee Breaks = stoner metal", and so on. The track-by-track review is mainly highlighting the possible influences on later groups (of which the songs supposedly have), rather than a coherent and thought out breakdown. Lets just say, Mr Christgau isn't a fan of metal (A conversation with Robert Christgau).Rvd4life (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Support listing metal before hard rock

1. Support. All of these currently cited in the article--"the definitive ... heavy metal album" (Robert Christgau), included in Joe Gross' heavy metal album guide for Spin, Chuck Klosterman's list of metal albums for Spin where he credits it for creating metal and accompanies it with a track-by-track review on how exactly each song is metal (Spin, pp. 80-82). Oh, and if GabeMc isn't partial to Christgau (for some reason), perhaps Chuck Eddy will suffice ([6]) Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Y2kcrazyjoker4, is that verifiable, that "hard rock" is the most "all encompassing"--in other words, is that some critic's/writer's opinion or your own view of what that term suggests for this album? Because if that's an original thought from you instead of any source--that "hard rock encompasses this album's other styles"--then that's not an acceptable rationale for why you'd support it over "heavy metal". I hope we're not counting votes of personal opinions but of what's grounded in what's cited in the article or available elsewhere. I'd also like to get any editor's thoughts on Klosterman's track-by-track review, since you originally said that each of this album's songs wouldn't be classified as metal. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The first thing Klosterman says in his ranking is "Led Zeppelin's fourth studio album is the most famous hard-rock album ever recorded"... before he says anything about metal. Furthermore, anyone with an iota of reading comprehension can figure out the track-by-track descriptions are not calling each song metal but rather detailing how each of the tracks had an influence on modern metal songs... unless you think that "The Battle of Evermore", a song with an acoustic guitar and mandolin, is a "progressive metal" song. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)