Talk:Led Zeppelin

Is Coda a "major work"?

Whether to include Coda in the main article discography has been discussed before. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines is actually a "essay on style", not a formally adopted WP guideline or policy. It includes: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article ... Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." (emphasis added)

So, there is no bright-line rule that any type of album should be automatically excluded – the more important consideration is whether the album is a "major work": how did it chart, what did the critics have to say, etc. I don't think that anyone could argue that Frampton Comes Alive! is not one of his major works (it's probably the major work of his career). Anyway, rather than re-add Coda (it was removed over a year ago by a since-blocked editor[1]), this is being opened for discussion to see other viewpoints (pinging previous participants: Mortee, Piriczki, Markworthen and current editors 2605:A000:CB03:8D00:996B:2879:2F15:79AC, Bruce1ee ).

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Our article Coda (album) states "Coda is the ninth and final studio album...", not as a compilation album at all; however Led Zeppelin discography does include it in the "Compilation albums" list - so we already have a contradiction.
It is certainly not a "compilation album" in the usual sense of an album compiled of tracks from previously released recordings - the tracks on coda were all previously unreleased. I would go with the description "the ninth and final studio album" and include it in the Main discography section of this article, and move it from "Compilation albums" to "Studio albums" in Led Zeppelin discography
Another relevant discussion was about Pictures at an Exhibition (Emerson, Lake & Palmer album) which was agreed should be included in the discography of their main article, despite being a live album. (ELP and Zeppelin in the same thread - I'll go and fetch my hard hat) - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

[R to Arjayay] I tried to steer clear of the studio vs compilation issue, but I suppose it was bound to come up. The same IP who is attempting to re-add Coda to the Discography section here is the one who twice changed "compilation" to "studio" in the album article (soon to be reverted by Isento?). The ref (removed by the IP) calls it "a rarities compilation", but a quick scan of other reviews don't mention it. In this case, there should be more than one ref to classify it as a "compilation", but the sources usually don't supply a neat type= definition. So regardless of whether it's a studio or compilation album, should it be included here in the Discography section? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think Coda should be included, though I don't feel strongly about it. The songs may have been recorded at various times with various projects in mind, but they're new material in the sense that they'd not been released before. It's not at all equivalent to a Greatest Hits or a compilation of that sort; it's a significant body of new (to the public) work that also, per our article, charted in five countries' top 10s. (Incidentally, I'd argue that true compilations can - rarely - belong on these lists too; Eva Cassidy § Discography perhaps includes some it shouldn't, but it would look quite wrong without Songbird.) › Mortee _talk 18:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - If we are to use the standards of significant coverage at WP:SIGCOV, then Coda is notable enough to be considered a major work. isento (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I am persuaded by Arjayay's, Mortee's, and isento's cogent comments. (Thanks for the ping Ojorojo ;-).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the question of album-type classification, it has been demonstrated at Talk:Led_Zeppelin_discography#RfC:_Should_Coda_be_categorized_as_a_compilation_album_in_this_discography? that numerous reliable sources consider Coda a compilation album and In Through the Out Door the final studio album. isento (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

https://wcsx.com/galleries/led-zeppelin-all-92-songs-ranked/ Source here says Coda is a compilation album and the albums article says it is a compilation album. 24.127.236.115 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Coda being a studio album or a compilation album

The consensus is that Coda should not be listed as a compilation album.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Coda be listed as part of Led Zeppelin's studio albums or their compilation albums? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Compilation Albums as it is a compilation of unused songs. I believe the studio albums should remain as full concept albums that were meant to be produced together. Cook907 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

→ Let's rephrase the question to comport with the traditional format: Coda should be listed as a compilation album. Support or Oppose?

• Support Oppose (per the explanations below—thank you for clarifying the issue for me. Edited on 27 Dec 2019.) Coda being listed as a compilation album. I agree that studio albums are full concept albums developed and arranged by the artist(s) to be heard in the order presented and in their entirety. (At least that was the intention before the advent of streaming.) On a personal note, I've been an ardent Zeppelin fan since 1973 and I've always considered In Through the Out Door to be their last album, with Coda being a nice addition of previously unreleased songs.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained above, this does not fit the "normal" definition of a compilation album as none of the recordings were previously released. Furthermore it was issued by Swan Song Records which was still under the control of the band, unlike many "cash-in" compilations produced by many record companies against their bands' will. I also note that the definition at Coda (album) which was "Coda is the ninth and final studio album" when I wrote the above comment, has since been changed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my response above, but I don't really see what the question means in the context of this article. The discussion has been about whether to list it in this article under §Discography or not, i.e. whether it's a "major work". In this article we haven't listed albums separately by type and I've argued that, whether Coda is a compilation album or not, it should be included in that section as a major body of previously unreleased work. › Mortee _talk 23:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Close this RfC as unnecessary. There is already an ongoing RfC on the same issue. Whether to remove or keep Coda listed in this article's "Discography" section does not depend on how it's categorized (see the discussion above "Is Coda a "major work"?"). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment This RfC has not yet been closed. But seems to be going the same way as the other one here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. - There is currently a consensus that Coda is a major work, which means it should be listed in the main article discography. And, closely related, there is consensus that Coda should not be classified as a compilation album. Question: Have we done enough to solicit opinions from other editors? (I don't know the answer.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The difficulty here appears to be with the term "studio album". At its simplest, a studio album is just an album recorded in a studio, but there has grown an understanding over the years on Wikipedia that "studio album" = "major work", and as a consequence any album that is not defined as a "studio album" is therefore not a major work. Even though a compilation album may consist of tracks recorded in a studio, people feel that a compilation album is not a major work so therefore cannot be a "studio album". Which creates odd situations such as Physical Graffiti being partly a compilation album, yet folks don't have a problem with that album being regarded as a major work, but there does appear to be a problem with Coda because none of the tracks were recorded specifically for this album. The term "studio album" to replace the standard "album" on Wikipedia appears to have first occurred in 2008 - [2], though changes were still taking place in Dec 2013 - [3], and Feb 2015 - [4]. For most of my life albums have been termed albums, unless they were live or compilation albums. Same as albums were always understood to be single albums, but were not defined as "single album" even though we had "double album" and "triple album", an "album" was understood to contain tracks recorded in a studio without that having to be spelled out. I'm not exactly sure when, why, or who started to call all albums (other than live or compilation) "studio albums", but I have noticed it occuring in sources outside of Wikipedia. Did we start it here, and then other sources copy it, or are we the originators of the term "studio album" used to describe all albums released by an artist unless the album is live or compilation? By using this term we are creating problems for ourselves. Some albums contain tracks recorded live in concert as well as tracks recorded in a studio. Some albums are recorded live in a studio. Some live albums are overdubbed in the studio. Some albums are recorded in a studio but have live effects added to them. Some artists record new material live in concert, which make them significant major works, but editors on Wikipedia remove such albums from listings because they are not "studio albums", and debates take place as to if the album should be listed or not. Concerto for Group and Orchestra is not listed on Deep Purple because it's not a "studio album". This is a better way of doing it: Frank Zappa discography. Coda was an official album released by Led Zeppelin. If we move away from this recent "studio" appendage to official albums, we can avoid confusions and the need to debate if an album mostly recorded in the studio (two tracks were recorded in concert) consisting of unreleased material and put together by the band and accepted by the studio as an official album to fulfil contractual obligations is actually an official album. SilkTork (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Some music writers have felt that it was necessary to distinguish between a "studio album" and a "compilation" (for the same album of previously unreleased recordings) much earlier (1985[5], 1998[6], 1995[7]). The problem is that many readers see "compilation" as applying to best-of, greatest, etc., collections of previously released material. To me, it is misleading to include Coda with The Best of Led Zeppelin, Mothership, etc. To use "anthology" or something similar for the latter might be more accurate, but many music writers do not focus on classification schemes and do not use the terms consistently. Should (or can) WP develop its own system, such as the Zappa example? Or if WP is based on "verifiability, not truth", it only depends on what reliable sources say. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heavy metal

Should heavy metal be removed from the infobox? They are cited as pioneers of the genre, but should Led Zeppelin really be classified as heavy metal, since more of their harder-hitting songs fall under the hard rock genre as well? Music2247 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, see Talk:Deep Purple for rational. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discography section

I made an edit to the Discography section (diff). I replaced the "Main" hatnote with an italicized note below the list of albums that reads, "Note: See Led Zeppelin discography for the band's live and compilation albums. Also see List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin." I wrote the following explanation for the edit: "Given the controversy/debate regarding the band's "major works" and studio vs. compilation albums (see Talk page), I think it's important to provide clear direction to readers who are looking for the band's *complete* discography." ¶ Is that okay? Or does it run counter to long-established norms or policies for the Discography section? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The way "Main articles: Led Zeppelin discography and List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin" appeared at the top of the section and now does again is the norm and follows WP:WPMAG#Discography section. It would probably be more accurate to be titled "Major albums", but that might be a discussion for WT:WPMAG. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool - thank you Ojorojo.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)