Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Why the Need For Plagiarism Section?/Got Rid of the Plagiarism Stuff

(I united these two topics since they talk about the same thing anyway --Champaign (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

If anything it deserves a passing mention, but from the size of that seciton, one would think that the band was more famous for stealing music than selling albums. I also went ahead and deleted the pointless 'other controvesy' section. It's the kind of thing that should probably be added to the individual album sections, or the articles about those individual songs. I'm starting to see this article delve into very unencyclopedic controversy. Next there will be a section all about playing stairway to heaven backwards. Anyone agree that this section needs to be reduced and put somewhere else?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.15.27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD and remove it then. Unless proven in a court of law, it isn't fact as someone else below has already mentioned. MegX (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This info is not needed on the main article. Add this info on the seperate songs, or delete it fully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duff man2007 (talk • contribs) 04:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss for why people here think it is not necessary to have a section on something that is actually of great importance when studying Zeppelin. The plagiarism allegations are among the most famous things about the band and it would only seem natural that a section deal with it rather than, as you suggest, having the info in each individual song's article (making it unneccessarily difficult for anyone wishing to research this aspect of the band's legend.--Zoso Jade 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's better if large removals like this are discussed first. The first paragraph should at least be kept. It deals with multiple songs and how the band snubbed Rolling Stone afterwards. -Fnlayson 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Zoso Jade, you're either a blind troll or is simply delusional. The plagarism stuff is NEVER talked about when discussion Led Zeppelin, you rarely heard music historians or critics talk about it, never; stop makin blanket statements and GTFO wikipedia. Duff man2007 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the plagiarism stuff. But may I suggest to Duff man2007 that he/she reads this Wikipedia:Civility and this Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Have a nice day. Edelmand 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edelmand, I was being civil. Calling somebody delusional is not hostile, you need to get out more. Duff man2007 02:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. Calling someone a "blind troll" and telling them to "GTFO" is perfectly civil, without a trace of hostility. My mistake. Edelmand 12:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

/cough. The plagiarism section as I recall was a bit iffy. At the time of Zep's first coupleof albums and certainly their earlier history, taking the ideas of others and reworking them was part compliment and part expected. When it becomes too blatant (and perhaps too successful - ching ching hear the cash register) it leads to court cases. I remember three big ones ... Bowie taking the Sweet to court over Blockbuster=Jean Genie, Stefan Raab being sued by the Spice Girls (European song entry I believe) and Zep settling out of court toWillie Dixon's widow over Whole Lotta Love

I would probably not have that in the main article. Better to have it in Led Zep I and II info where it is more pertinent. Well just my 2cents worth. -cough. Must take some linctus ... Candy 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Making no presumptions about the age of "Duff Man" here, I beg to differ. Most music historians do make reference, if not always in great detail, to Led Zeppelin's use of blues numbers without credit (I will remind you that Zeppelin were actually sued for plagiarism and paid out a settlement). I have read just two Zeppelin biographies and they both mentioned it. I also looked through my copy of the in depth special magazine that Q magazine did into the band a few years back and the topic is, again, mentioned. Wikipedia is a place for sharing relevant information, not for one-sided band-worshipping. There is barely a lyric on the first album that wasn't taken from another artist, usually with no credit given. I think this is quite important.--Zoso Jade 09:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

lmao music historians? ya okay what historians? All the historians that I've see on special music DVDs, or in interviews, or when describing a band in a conversation with a group of critics, they have NEVER mentioned this.

oh, you read two biographies from some fan/casual listener on a website? Good for you buddy, really congrats.

And about the Q magazine, they think that a Radiohead album is the greatest album of all time. So they lost the shred of credibility that they had.

And ya overall in their career they may have taken like 6 songs or so, all of which are hardly modified. BARELY notable at all. And yes I'm aware they have been sued by a couple or few people but that does not outweigh, or even match their acclaim and legendary impact on the music industry.

Try again

Duff man2007 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffman, you criticise me for allegedly just reading some websites for my sources and yet yours are from band-sponsored DVDs, that are neither comprehensive nor independent. A biography, by the way, is not necessarilly a "website" for "casual listeners". The ones I spoke of are actually books (without pictures or pop-ups, Duffman). I can send you the Amazon links if you would like to read them, or any other biographies, or books.

Most of what you have written here is irrelevant. You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise. You attempt to discredit Q magazine by attacking their opinion (a pointless exercise on Wikipedia, as the opinion of any particular source is of no importance) but fail to realise that what Q said about Zeppelin's plagiarism was fact and not merely their (obviously flawed, according to Wikipedia contributor "Duff man2007") opinion.

Further proof that you have neglected to actually find out anything about this topic before developing a hard line and being generally rather rude comes when you say they took "like 6" songs. I can think of the following songs for which proper credit was not given:

1. Babe I'm Going To Leave You 2. Dazed and Confused 3. Your Time Is Gonna Come 4. How Many More Times 5. Whole Lotta Love 6. The Lemon Song 7. Bring It On Home 8. Gallows Pole 9. Rock and Roll 10. Stairway To Heaven 11. When The Levee Breaks 12. In My Time of Dying 13. Boogie With Stu 14. Nobody's Fault But Mine

These aren't a few unimportant Zeppelin songs; these are amongst their biggest hits. To say that this is irrelevant information is barmy, and clearly biased.--Zoso Jade 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffman, you criticise me for allegedly just reading some websites for my sources and yet yours are from band-sponsored DVDs, that are neither comprehensive nor independent.

Yeah I'd say DVDs, (some of which are popular) are more notable from some website or whatever

A biography, by the way, is not necessarilly a "website" for "casual listeners". The ones I spoke of are actually books (without pictures or pop-ups, Duffman). I can send you the Amazon links if you would like to read them, or any other biographies, or books.

Okay then, how big are the writers? There have been books published by groupies talking about certain band members dicks. Let's say some certain band member in that band had an abnormally small dick, should we put that info in the article JUST BECAUSE a book an Amazon said it? If it were a somewhat notable writer then yes. And if that notable writer went to great lenghts, (i'm talking enough info to rival their prodigious critical acclaim in the book, then we might consider it.

Most of what you have written here is irrelevant. You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise

they did steal a few songs but it's not in the least bit notable enough to make a whole seperate article about it, that's asinine on so many levels.

You seem completely unable to divorce admiration for the band from the fact that they did plagiarise. You attempt to discredit Q magazine by attacking their opinion (a pointless exercise on Wikipedia, as the opinion of any particular source is of no importance) but fail to realise that what Q said about Zeppelin's plagiarism was fact and not merely their (obviously flawed, according to Wikipedia contributor "Duff man2007") opinion.

Either way my point still stands that Q magazine is laughable

Further proof that you have neglected to actually find out anything about this topic before developing a hard line and being generally rather rude comes when you say they took "like 6" songs. I can think of the following songs for which proper credit was not given...

Yeah about those songs, you're wrong for the following reasons:

A. The artists never bothered to copyright them B. they're old enough not to credit them C. Only small, short, brief instrumental similarities in the songs are present. Hardly enough to say that they stole the song from them D. Only small, short, brief lyric similarities in the songs are present. Hardly enough to say that they stole the song from them

So like I said, they only blatantly stole like 6 songs or so

Duff man2007 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Denny Somach, who runs Classicrockcentral.com has covered this topic exclusively. If you followed this subject closely, you would know that Led Zeppelin sold the rights to their entire song collection to Atlantic Records. The fact is, these people did have these songs copyrighted and they eventually sued Atlantic Records (because Led Zeppelin no longer owned the rights to their songs). Atlantic Records now credits those artists on Led Zeppelin's greatest hits album. So, if you say CD booklets are notable, then you must acknowledge that the greatest hits album now credits the original artist rather than Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. And, if you are going to try to discredit Somach as a non-notable critic, I can give you his resume. Coumarin 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So.... Coumarin...What did all that just mean? Duff man2007 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It means, their own record company and now owners of their material now recognize the original artists as the writers of those songs. Coumarin 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. When Led Zeppelin originally licensed the songs under Superhype Music Inc, their publishing company, they were in a 26 year agreement with Warner Music, at the end of the term of which the copyrights reverted to the members of the band. That licensing agreement expired in 1996. They own the copyright to the songs. From there they've provided publishers like Warner Chappell mechanical license to reproduce the works while retaining ownership. MegX (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL Duffman, "So, like i said they only blatantly stole like 6 songs or so." That's not important or substantial? You're making the case for inclusion of information on Led Zeppelin's flagrant plagiarism.

1337wesm 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be restored based on the fact that the case has not been made for its deletion. I personally haven't reviewed the section that was written so I don't know how neutral it was so if we do restore, we should make sure that it's not biased. Coumarin 20:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

YegLi :

As a fan I would be highly interested in reading an objective, “non angry”, fact based article on the subject; and must support the addition of a section or link to a full article into “plagiarism (allegations of)” hopping the author will properly describe the historical context. Specific songs with details on sound, techniques and roots of it all would be great.

Blues is my favorite kind of music now, mostly “old scratchy stuff”. I discovered blues thru Led Zeppelin (big thanks) after years of admiration for their music. Nothing gets me kicking like finding an old Blues rhythm reminding me of that great rock song I tripped on with Led Zep.

To me “plagiarism” is a bit of a strong word; in those days things where just not so black and white. Many blues artists “steal sounds” from each others all the time. Remember that Blues was mostly done in live shows with a lot of improvised parts, trying to impress other players present. Actual ownership was imposible to track as each would change it a little bit, overall creating better blues. Like we hear in Blues movies: “Can I steal that from you? Of course, It comes from something I stole from you years ago (laughter)”. (And yes, DuffMan sounds like an angry 15 year old kid, so lets move on.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YegLi (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on folks. This is all looking a bit silly now. Someone puts it in, someone deletes it. All without comment. Can we not come to an agreement on plagarism and stop making Wiki look like it is run by 9 year olds?--Egghead06 08:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave this in the individual songs. As I stated previously, during the time this was done it was not particularly notable in rock music. It was commonplace. There are better things to write about Zep imho Candy 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd love to agree with you Candy, but it WAS notable. Led Zeppelin were notorious for their bitter relationship with Rolling Stone magazine, so much that their initial reviews of their first album was mainly an accusation of them plagiarizing other blues artists. Remember, this was back when they (Rolling Stone) had credibility. So it WAS reported on, therefore it should be included on the main Zep article, rather than individual songs. Unless someone has the time to track down each song article, cite their research, and post the same exact info there, THEN we can get rid of this info. But in my opinion, Led Zeppelin's influences are important for casual fans of the band to read, such as myself.--71.183.84.51 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The best place to discuss possible plagiarism is on the song pages. I do support having a short section that discusses this aspect of the band in general.Alcuin (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with facts; Wikipedia:ENC. Wikipedia is not a soap box; Wikipedia:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trivia is discouraged from articles. Until these allegations of plagiarism are proven in a court of law, they remain nothing more than speculation, and as such its place within Wikipedia is questionable. (NB The Willie Dixon case never went to trial, it was settled out of court.) Iam (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think someone should get rid of the whole paragraph or maybe just reduce it to a few sentences. Reworking old blues songs aren't really "plagarising" them is it. The whole paragraph makes Led Zeppelin look like a rubbish band and makes people think bad of them.--Omarraii (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well be WP:BOLD and remove it then. With the lack of peer review, decent references, and editing/vandalism by faceless anonymous IPs (or by anyone with a "I'm a Led Zeppelin fan" template on their user page, when they clearly don't even know the band history), no music researcher worth their salt would or should take Wikipedia seriously anyway. I don't and neither should people wanting to find out about the band. MegX (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article really has gone to hell in a hand basket since the summer. People say that the "case for deletion of the plagiarism section" has not been presented - but then if you remember far enough back you'll know the case for its inclusion was never made previously. The article did mention plagiarism in the summer, but it was not a huge section seemingly randomly placed at the bottom of the article. Many of these claims of plagiarism were not proven in a court of law. A settlement out of court is not the same as being proven guilty in court, even if it suggests guilt. --FrasierC (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Frasier. The article is not in good condition. As for Rolling Stone, when it has a reviewer whose writing style is "Like, I listened to the break (Jimmy wrenching some simply indescribable sounds out of his axe while your stereo goes ape-shit) on some heavy Vietnamese weed and very nearly had my mind blown. Hey, I know what you're thinking. "That's not very objective." But dig: I also listened to it on mescaline, some old Romilar, novocain, and ground up Fusion, and it was just as mind-boggling as before. I must admit I haven't listened to it straight yet – I don't think a group this heavy is best enjoyed that way". In what way was that review informative or credible? You can understand why the magazine asked Jim Miller to write the encyclopaedia entry for them instead. MegX (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop arguing about this, all of the people commenting here like Led Zeppelin (at least I assume they do, or else they just wasted a rather large amount of time reading something that holds no interest for them at all) but this article isn't about celebrating Zeppelin and saying how awesome they were (and they were pretty awesome) this article is about providing a full and truthful account of Zeppelin's career, impact and controversy. Readers must be able to make up their own mind. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not when it's hasn't been proven in a court of law. Encyclopaedia's deal with facts, not rumours, and certainly not defamation. MegX (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The thought of Jimmy Page sitting at home reading Wikipedia is quite bizarre. Firstly he knows where they got their music from and secondly in the UK we have not yet reached the epidemic stage in our tendancy to litigate as appears to be the case in the U.S. --Egghead06 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a UK only encyclopaedia. You single out Jimmy Page - there were three other songwriters in the band. More importantly, the owners of the copyright are the publishing companies. Led Zeppelin's publishing company is based in the US. Furthermore that section was added by a known sockpuppet. There is only one argument used in regard to Dixon, that's been attempted to apply to all other songs. One swallow does not a summer make. Unless there is a court case involving the other songs, that argument applied here is spurious. MegX (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Plagiarism isn't proven in a court of law, even if it was Zeppelin settled when sued by Willie Dixon (can you say guilty). So, yeah, I think Zep's plagiarism should be considered a FACT. As far as defamation goes, Wikipedia is here to give people facts, not defame people (this isn't a site people come to for gossip) but equally not to glorify bands we like to the extreme because we can. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you to be a sockpuppet, so your opionion doesn't count. I intend taking this issue to the admins. MegX (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a sockpuppet is but if my username is Led Zeppelin, that should mean that I like Led Zeppelin and I shouldn't want anyone to know about them plagiarising songs. That's all true but I also know that Wikipedia is about giving people the facts which we should, so if you take this to the admins, so will I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led zeppelin033 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It means nothing. It's no different to me setting up an account called User:ILoveABBA. It's no different to someone like egghead putting a Celine Dion fan and a Led Zeppelin fan tag on their user pages. You can fool some people some of the time but you dont fool everyone, particularly those who know that section was added by a known sockpuppet, found guilty by an admin investigation sometime ago. HelenWatt (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah youth!!! Well HelenWatt seems you have taken the usual Wiki approach of attacking the person rather than the data in dispute. I am old enough to remember Led Zeppelin forming and to have bought all their albums (on real vinyl) on 1st release and to have seen Celine live in Vegas. I am also wise enough to know that plagiarism has to be mentioned in a Led Zeppelin article. Allegations have been around since Led Zeppelin 1 but then you wouldn't remember that! --Egghead06 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If your're going to make a statement like that please provide proof fo your age and identity. MegX (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The admins should be brought in. I've sent an email. Iam (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going read this entire discussion but I just want to say being a gigantic fan of LZ, I'm aware that they indeed have "stolen" many bits and pieces of songs, and thus people go purposely looking for even more "suspicious" sounding similarities between songs. However as of right now, I would say the only verifiable statements in the 'plagiarism' section would be the Whole Lotta Love royalties, and the Boogie With Stu credit to Valens. The first paragraph of the section, and the Stairway to Heaven allegations, may indeed warrant removal as their sources are questionable to me. The source for the first is one critic from Rolling Stone, and the latter source is some internet radio website.. these references either need to be improved for reliability, or the statements removed. IrisKawling (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IrisKawling I tacitly agree with your logic, but In My Time of Dying should also stay in there as it's just two older blues songs put together (can't remember names, but look around and you'll finds them). And HelenWatt you are a tool, because you trying to sound smart by implying that I'm some evil Zeppelin-hating bastard that is out to ruin their reputations through my opinion that all the facts should be presented in the article might fool most people, but it doesn't fool me. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In My Time of Dying is a traditional number, and if anything is a cover, certainly not plagiarism. IrisKawling (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They didin't credit the original writers though... Led zeppelin033 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Original writers? When a song is traditional there is no "original" authors to be credited, that's if you can even find them. There is no law in the US Copyright Act which demands writers state "Traditional" in any credits. HelenWatt (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading in the all music guide description of led zeppelin III that since i've been loving you was actually copying a muddy waters song. i think it is imperative to include copyright infringements. it is a large deal with the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.35.109 (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not when it involves speculation and not proven in a court of law. MegX (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The blues are what was played by Led Zeppelin. The fact is that any fat lawyer can lay claim to the blues. The fact is that Page and Plant played their ass off for four years to popularize the sound of Willie Dixon, Robert Johnson and even Muddy Waters, who is the better for it. I state now that none of the works of Led Zeppelin were stolen - they are reverential to the first works and stand unmatched in their power. THIS IS IRRELEVANT!! Sswonk (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Just chiming in with my 2 cents worth. Throughout this lengthy debate/argument one little point seems to have been missed out...Wikipedia has a convenient policy regarding how to deal with hotly debated issues: state the consensus of the most reputable sources. So in this case, all we need is for one of us (I can do it this week) to go through a few encyclopedias and music encyclopedias, and see what, if anything, they have to say about Led Zep and the plagiarism allegations. If Encyclopedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, and others all agree that Led Zep did or didn't do plagiarism, we can put the sources and quotes in, and move on. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Beard and Gloag's book uses the same source ie. Headlam 1995, so I dont understand the point of quoting Beard and Gloag as a different source when the passage in their book refers to Headlam. MegX (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not helped by Edelmand constantly adding quotes to the section... it now occupies a third of the entire article. MegX (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Yegli, you're right 100% when you say:

<To me “plagiarism” is a bit of a strong word; in those days things where just not so black and white. Many blues artists “steal sounds” from each others all the time. Remember that Blues was mostly done in live shows with a lot of improvised parts, trying to impress other players present. Actual ownership was imposible to track as each would change it a little bit, overall creating better blues. Like we hear in Blues movies: “Can I steal that from you? Of course, It comes from something I stole from you years ago (laughter)>

Led ZEPPELIN was like all the Bluesmens: sometimes they took notes or lyrics. It is common in the music world.

So, here is a site with very interesting information for you.(French language). It's concerning 18 songs of Led Zeppelin and call: <They have inspired Led Zeppelin> [[1]]

For example: <Babe, I'm gonna leave you>

< "Babe, I'm gonna leave you" was written and recorded in the 50s by Annie Briggs. Joan Baez popularized the song in 1962, well before it was taken over by Led Zeppelin. In the 80s, the son of Anne Briggs heard his mother play what he and most people of his generation believed to be a song by Led Zeppelin. He asked her where she had the idea to play "Babe, I'm gonna leave you." The response from her mother encouraged him to do some research following which, from 1990, Led Zeppelin finally agreed to credit Anne Briggs for this song ..>

And you can listen the song on this thread for all the 18 songs except 2 songs: < How Many More Times> and < I can't quit you Babe>

I'm hoping you can translate in English. If not, i will try for you.

Led Zeppelin forever! --Roujan (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Think this section is looking about right now. ... ?? --Candy (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as well there's a plagiarism section, that's what I came here to look up! What's the point of an encyclopedia that doesn't have the info you're looking for? If it's out there it should be in here.

One thing this 'discussion' does prove is how stupid the rules are where you can quote from books, magazines, websites, and even sleevenotes, but actually listening to the records, which are every bit as permanent as books, is dismissed as original research. I've got Muddy Waters' 'Woman you need love' right here, I can hear the lyrics (Almost identical), the melody (Sounds pretty much identical to me), and that riff... What's all that about it being an original Page riff? You can hear it quite clearly though nowhere near as prominently at the fade out. Now someone else go and do it, it won't be original research then, will it? 194.247.49.195 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia's Britannica, World Book, and Funk & Wagnalls dont have an "allegations" section. If you believe the bar is too high here, it's even higher for *real* encyclopaedias ie. encyclopaedias written by experts with names, not faceless anonymous ones with article talk pages that read like a toilet wall. ZhaoHong (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I come to Wikipedia for my info. It may not always be spot on, but at least it tries to provide information which other publications won't, or even can't , cover. Deke42 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Countdown: 10 Songs Led Zeppelin Stole From Other Artists http://earfarm.com/features/daily-feature/monday/1820 Led Zeppelin - Jimmy Page.. Plagiarism? http://en.allexperts.com/q/Led-Zeppelin-501/f_3722451_3659.htm LED ZEPPELIN'S INFLUENCES Originals? http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/Zep/Originals.php These are not simply "borrowed" or re-arranged traditional blues and folksongs Cuvtixo (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

American English and "were"

Is there a reason that this article is written in UK English when nearly every other article is written in American English? " Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin WERE a band.) were Don't waste your time changing this to "was", it will be reverted back quickly." Rundar (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

???? WP:ENGVAR American subject=American English. Every other English speaking country in the world uses proper English. UK subject=UK grammar. And most musical artist articles are written this way. And if they aren't they need to be corrected. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"nearly every other article is written in American English" is just a gross simplification. And just not true. LZ is from the UK, England specifically, so let it be.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not let it be. According to this website, there are about 300,000,000 Americans and 60,000,000 people in the UK. Why should articles cater to their grammar instead? Articles about French subjects are not all written in French. The fact that Led Zeppelin is an English band is not a good reason for this page to be written with English grammar. If you want to use UK English grammar, then make seperate pages with UK grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.200.52 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The French example is irrelvant as this is an English language wiki. Using British/Commonwealth spelling for British/Commonwealth subjects is within Wikipedia policy (see Engvar link above). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The notion that UK english uses the plural is absolute rubbish. Because some british people cannot speak English properly does not change the fact that "a band" is singular. It is not british to use the plural - it is just bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.8.191 (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

British subject = British English. IF however, we were to have a constant grammar across all subjects, then EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE would have to conform to British English.

Why? Because the English dictionary is several centuries older than you nation, you fools. It is the correct form, the original form, and America utilises what is technically known as a "corruption" of the orignal form of the language. Just because you have a larger population doesn't mean you're allowed to mis-spell British articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.79.114 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, if anyone cares to actually check, the rules for US and UK English are pretty much the same. When you're referring to a collective such as a rock group it depends upon whether you're referring to them as a collective unit or as individual members of the unit.

Cardboard Frog HAS won 6 million awards in its home nation of West Slobovia

Cardboard Frog HAVE won various awards in their home nation...

The first means that the band as a unit has won rather a lot of awards, the second means that the individual members of the band have won a number of different awards between them. The same rule applies to 'was' and 'were', but I couldn't think of a suitably amusing example... 213.208.117.47 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't lead to the article being improved. Both UK English or US English grammar and spelling are acceptable as they do not lead to the reader not being able to comprehend the article and both are used by governements.--Tomvasseur (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

300 million

I'm laying out an open challenge to anyone to find a source for the 300 million claim that meets WP:RS criteria and predates its first mention in this article. Good luck. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To aid you in your search, it first appeared in this article, without a citation of course, at 16:24 25 September 2005. It was added by 24.194.171.143 (talk), a known vandal. All the subsequent citations are after that date. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My, the silence is deafening. Look at where the 300 million sales figure came from. It's clear as day. It came from a known vandal, stayed in the article for months because Wikipedia editors aren't doing their job, and was subsequently published in "reputable" sources because lazy journalists used Wikipedia as a reference. Principled Wikipedia editors shouldn't stand for it. True Led Zeppelin fans shouldn't stand for it. I'm not standing for it. Are you going to just look the other way, or are we going to fix this? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're basing you entire debate on a Stephen Colbert comedy gag? Wikiality is Colbert Report hijinx. Are you sure you aren't looking for Unencyclopedia? You can quote Colbert all you want over there. The links in the article opening are all from reliable sources. A lot more reliable than Colbert's Wikiality foolishness. 216.21.150.44 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality is real. This article is a textbook example of it. I just proved that the 300 million figure first appeared in this article as a contribution from a known vandal without a single corroborating source. It remained in this article for months without challenge because the editors of this article were derelict. It was subsequently picked up by lazy journalists and published in "reputable" sources and now those same sources are used to back up the original claim after the fact. None of the sources say where the 300 million figure comes from. All of them are dated months after the initial Wikipedia entry. It's plain as day what happened. So get rid of it. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for over 350 million (http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/11/21/9103_opinion.html) - It's a nice, provincial Australian newspaper. Shall we now use that??? No, of course not, because none of these claims for 300/350 million etc come from repuatable sources. Get rid until someone finds a proper figure from a reputable source and not a mag, fanpage or newspaper.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And unproven allegations of plagiarism, don't belong in an encyclopaedia either. I agree with you on mags not being reputable sources, Rolling Stone for instance. MegX (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unproven allegations? I've already proven it by proving that this article has been claiming 300 million sold since long before all of the citations currently "supporting" it. If you want to prove me wrong, find out where the known vandal that added the figure got it from. Good luck. You're going to need it, because I'm right. Stop flying the false flag of 300 million sold and start flying the flag of truth in Led Zeppelin's article. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. Your inflated self-importance. You thought I was talking to you. My comments were in regard to Egghead's statement, not yours. MegX (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care who you're talking to. Either answer the challenge or admit that I'm right. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While not convinced about the 300 million figure, this struck me:

" Get rid until someone finds a proper figure from a reputable source and not a mag, fanpage or newspaper."

What would you consider a reputable source if you don't think magazines and newspaapers aren't reliable? You start on a slippery slope if you claim that none of these sources are reliable, you bring up the question: "what is reliable?", which you're not going to be able to answer without a flurry of questions about the validity of such sources.

Having said that, the figure is no more or less correct than any other; the fact is we don't know how many albums the band have sold worldwide. I'd vote for removal.

--FrasierC (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is inconsistency in the arguments over sources, because they don't want to be proved wrong (ie. no source they dont agree with is correct), but further to that, why only Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Pink Floyd etc, classic rock bands are being targetted but not Michael Jackson's claimed figure of 750 million? That's absurd. This argument is nothing about figures, this argument is about attempting to discredit bands User:74.77.222.188 pretends to like. MegX (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You know nothing about me, MegX. I don't give a damn about Michael Jackson. If his sales figure is false, and it almost certainly is, then it should also be removed. My time is at a premium. I edit articles I care about. I adore Led Zeppelin. I also love The Who, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, AC/DC and many other classic rock artists. I want truth in their articles. It's that simple. Read my arguments again. You know I'm right. So stand up for truth and real fandom, not lies and blind fandom. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's truly unfounded - first of all the Michael Jackson figure is entirely independent of what I'm saying about Led Zeppelin. I'm no MJ fan or any great expert on that subject, but I would guess that it is most likely the 750 million is equally open to criticism. What I'm saying is that the figure is probably inaccurate - that is not to say that I am somehow diminishing Led Zeppelin's achievements in terms of sales. Whether or not they sold 300 million albums, or 250, or 321 million makes no odds in real terms. And thus I'd like to ask how questioning how we know exact sales figures is somehow discrediting rock bands. As a fan of Led Zeppelin, I couldn't care less if they sold 300 million albums or not, and as a Wikipedia user I am interest in accuracy. --FrasierC (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources posted and all meet WP:RS and satisfy WP:CITE and WP:V. As with other questionable content on Wikipedia, if there is any question the editors who feel the text is not accurate need to find other sources which outnumber the first series of sources. Even then they can't remove the original text they can only add their second opinion along with their own sources provided those sources are trustworthy. The sources that have been included so far are more than adequate to support the content they are added to. Fair Deal (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Have your read any of this discussion? I know the sources meet WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:V. That's why I call this garbage wikiality. The 300 million figure first appeared in this wikipedia article as a contribution from a known vandal. I proved that. Look above. All the current citations for the 300 million figure postdate its addition to this article by many months, even years. So where did the 300 million figure come from? Did this known vandal have a freaking time machine? If you can't find where it came from, you know I'm right. None of the sources say where the figure comes from. It's a farce. It's lazy journalism. It's wikiality. How long are we going to let this fester? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I had nothing better to do, I decided to take up 74.77.222.188 on his offer. He was right, there is nothing I could find (I searched for at least an hour) that mentions Led Zeppelin selling more than 300 million albums until after that date. I found a few less than 2 months after it was put up here, but none before. The closest thing I could find was the website from a radio station claiming the number was between 200 and 300 million. Anything that meets WP:RS (I would like to note that WP:RS says right on the page it is not a policy, merely a guideline, and therefore nothing HAS to meet it) before the figure first appears on this page only has them down for over 200 million. The only problem is now all the sources say 300 million so if you tried to change it people would keep editing back. Then again, isn't the nature of Wikipedia just a collection of facts based on available sources? I am a fairly new editor so please correct me if I am wrong, but now the sources (ones apparently considered reliable) say they sold 300 million. I guess it just seems to me that if reliable sources have it, there is not much that can be done about it, even if we can "trace" it back. While it is likely the sources got the number from this very page, we have no way of verifying that. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right Rowdyoctopus, there is no actual proof of wikiality, just a strongly supported inference. Actually, it's highly likely that 74.77.222.188 is correct in saying that the 300 figure originated from wikipedia, then found its way into the mainstream media, only for those media sources to be later cited within wikipedia as reliable sources to back up the 300 figure. But "highly likely" is not the same as "proof". For proof you need to cite reliable sources. The problem is there is no reliable source that can actually be cited to prove that wikiality took place in this instance (or at least, if there is I am not aware of it). Edelmand (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we all agree with the fact that it's likely that the 300 million figure originated from wikipedia, which is an occurrence that other articles also has suffered from, like Pink Floyd's sales number, though that has been "corrected". It's like this, Pink Floyd's article used to say that they've sold more than 250 million albums, which was backed by as many sources as the Led Zeppelin article currently has, and which were equally reliable, which means they most likely got it from wikipedia and were by-the-way-mentions only. But the newest figure in PF's article is 210 million albums, almost 100 million albums less than Led Zeppelin (according to wikipedia), which we all know is not reasonable. That number (210) was taken from a list, obviously more reliable than any of the earlier sources, which is an update by The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry of the top 150 selling artists through all times. Pink Floyd is the eleventh artist with 210 million albums sold, and Led Zeppelin right after with 200 million. There are two additional sources on Pink Floyd's sales number that say "over 200 million albums" and are both about Syd Barrett. It's likely that that also is a direct quotation from wikipedia, since the PF article, during the confusion it seems, wrote "more than 200 million" between the "250" and "210" versions. Well, if the Pink Floyd article can base the entire figure on that list, which is more reliable than all the other sources that backed 250 million, it could work for this article as well. Wikipedia is against contradictions, but as it is, it kind of is what it represents. That can be fixed. I don't know whether you think this article should change the figure or not. I do. Here's the list. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/5531

That link fails WP:RS unfortunately. It lists Metallica at 200M when their own website and latest press release from the band itself says they have sold just over 100M worldwide. A Colbert Report comedy gag can't be used to negate any source that qualifies under wp:rs. Which, right now, all the given sources pass that policy. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you then explain why Pink Floyd's article relies on one incompetent source like that, since the previous sources obviously were and are (right now) highly reliable? Maybe the PF article's admin isn't as great and honorable as other wikipedians, and hasn't retrieved as many wikipedian iron crosses or whatever. And is that "speak politely" command always present when you write something or was it especially put in here, 'cause that's a comedy gag if anything. Well, I'll remind PF's admin of his deficiency, even though contradictions between admins is a far smaller problem than between articles as big as Pink Floyd's and Led Zeppelin's. But I wanna get one things straight. Does anyone deny the fact that Led Zeppelin's 300M compared to Pink Floyd's supposed 210M is utterly unreasonable? All reliable sources, wikipedian regulations and insentient objectivity aside.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One cannot vouch for the mind of another. Why do people vandalise articles? No-one really knows except the person vandalising. The 300M reference already meets wikipedia standards. HelenWatt (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you call this vandalising, you haven't seen vandalising.Revan ltrl (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I made an analogy with vandalism: Why do people vandalise Wikipedia? Only the vandal knows - why do people insert figures other people disagree with? Only the editor knows. The 300M reference already meets wikipedia standards. HelenWatt (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Only Sith deal in absolutes.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. That figure (300M) is highly doubtful, which, according to many editors I've discussed with (see above), probably ended up on the pages used as reliable sources in the article, through wikipedia at an earlier stage. I think it would be for the best (not withholding information and all the other stuff wikipedia supposedly stands for) if a note followed the 300M statement, expressing that it's likely that the figure originated from wikipedia itself. The Truth doesn't have boundaries, and there's no need for wikipedia to stand for hypocrisy, when the people deserve the full story. And one other thing: we don't need any RELIABLE SOURCES for this idea! ISN'T THAT GREAT?!Revan ltrl (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a topic tha has been beaten to death. The sources all pass WP:RS and the consensus is that the number stay the way it is. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let it stay the way it is, but add a note that washes HYPOCRISY away from this infested slime pit called wikipedia.Revan ltrl (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no objections, which means I'll add a note sometime soon, but for now, I just want to point out that source nr 14 isn't working. Shouldn't it be deleted?Revan ltrl (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not gotten a consensus to make this change. Most probably think this discussion (horse) died some time ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we get that consensus. Please discuss further in the "Disputed accuracy of worldwide album sales" section below. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you talking about dead horses? You're ignoring my message. One of the sources are dead, call it a goat or a cow or whatever you want. It merely adds to the wikipedian hypocrysy having that dead source (goat) there. But I will check the section about sales below. Revan ltrl (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal?

"Led Zeppelin is regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands." Led Zeppelin is not one of the first Heavy metal bands. Its Hard-Rock, blues rock and classical Rock , please consider. Most of the distortions and effects aren't used by typical "Heavy Metal" bands. Most of their Solos, Chords and Progressions are minor pentatonic , Hence, blues rock , and particularly heavy rock when distorted/overdriven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosdapwn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well at the time Led Zep was Heavy Metal. They started in '69 and they sounded like they were in '77 and at the time rock was like the Greatful Dead, The Who, and Jimi Hendrix; then led zeppelin comes on the scene with Robert screaming, and jimmy soloing like mad.--3lt3ponz3r (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin has always been hard to categorise, because of the stylist diversity displayed from the eponymous debut album all the way to Coda. Heavy metal was still very much a new tag in the late 1960s and early 1970s. What we regard as heavy metal today is different to what people thought of back in that era, particularly when bands such as Black Sabbath had themselves only just started. Is Led Zeppelin heavy metal? Well Page and Plant have both publicly stated they are not. I tend to agree to an extent. I think the term "proto-metal" is a more accurate description for the heavier tracks, which are few and far between. Hard rock, blues rock, folk rock, psychedelic rock, heavy blues, prog rock, symphonic rock.. Led Zeppelin dabbled with them all so its very difficult to nail down one particular genre to the band that everyone can agree on. This was discussed previously and no-one could agree on one concrete position. MegX (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin's connection with the genre is well referenced. I saw them twice in 1973 and once more in 1975. In the early 70s no one debated what heavy metal was. It was Led Zeppelin. An artist's own perception of themselves has never been accepted within Wiki music debates since an artist may not see themselves the way the general public has anointed them. Ian Gillan hates the term heavy metal and has never believed it should apply to Deep Purple. But they are heavy metal anyways. Lemmy doesn't like the term being used for Motorhead believing them to be nothing more than a simple rock and roll band. Away from Lemmy's opinion, no one is going to debate that Motorhead are most certainly a heavy metal band. Many editors have tried to remove heavy metal from the Rush infobox. The band themselves have never thought of themselves as a heavy metal band. But their own official biography labels them as a heavy metal band right on the cover. Led Zeppelin is heavy metal? In the grand historical overview of the genre - heavy metal IS Led Zeppelin. Since the genre would likely not have grown to what it has had they not pioneered it in the first place. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Led Zeppelin wouldn't fall into Heavy Metal mostly because of its blues influence and widespread use of acoustic sections. Most of their songs lack basic elements of Heavy Metal music. Even if they were at some point precursors to that music genre, they would be far from being HM themselves. Fmneto (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. There is little doubt that some of the songs that Zeppelin made were influential on HM and these songs could plausibly be called HM (Communication Breakdown, Immigrant Song, for instance). However, the vast majority of Zeppelin's repetoire could not be called heavy metal with a straight face. A few songs cannot be enough to define a band - Zeppelin also dabbled with disco and reggae music - no one would think to call them a Reggae band. As someone pointed out earlier - even calling them a blues band would be more appropriate as they had more blues than HM numbers. I think they can fall under Hard Rock but not Heavy Metal, no.--Zoso Jade (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is ever going to be 100% agreement over it because heavy metal means different things to different people. There was no consensus before and I doubt there will be consensus now. MegX (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to the citations that support it are in abundance. And that always overrides opinion. Now if only people would stop sticking progressive rock into the Led Zeppelin related pages. That would be a real win for Wikipedia. Either these users know nothing about prog rock? Or they know nothing about Led Zeppelin? Where does the urge to add that genre to any Led Zeppelin page come from? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what would you define as "prog rock"? I would agree Led Zeppelin is not a prog rock band per se but they do have a few tracks that could be described as such, no different from some songs being called heavy metal. MegX (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say prog rock involves very unusual song structures, experimental instruments, abstract lyrics and so on. Not to mention that progressive rock had its origins in psychedelic rock and Led Zeppelin certainly didn't come from there. Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone who heard anything from Led call them "prog". Or experimental for that matter. Fmneto (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed editors add prog to a couple of Led Zeppelin song articles. Both No Quarter and Rain Song seemed to get this erroneous tag. If they are prog then they are prog is the loosest sense of the term. And even if they were prog-like, I wouldn't think having 2 prog songs out of an entire catalog warrant the band having prog included in their infobox. The Rolling Stones have several country and reggae songs among their vast collection. They are quite good at both styles. But I don't think anyone would ever think of them as either a country band or a reggae band. The Stooges and MC5 were playing punk before anyone knew what punk was. So when everyone figured out was punk was the Stooges and the MC5 suddenly became garage rock? I would agree with the earlier statement about the NWOBHM and the splintering of heavy metal into its many modern sub-genres. But from 1968 to 1980 heavy metal was very much alive. Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Led Zeppelin, Thin Lizzy, Mountain, Blue Oyster Cult, Uriah Heep - even Cream and the Jeff Beck Group - all these acts were heavy metal until Motorhead and Iron Maiden came along. The earliest use of the term was in a review of a Humble Pie album?? When Lester Bangs wrote about what heavy metal was... it was Led Zeppelin. And it still is. Five years from now this page will still have this debate. And they will still be heavy metal. Peter Fleet (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-Side topic. The plagiarism sections are more than "loose" with original research and personal opinion and can be trimmed to a sentence or two. Unless they went to court over it, it shouldn't be in the article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... but if you settle out of court in order to avoid ever going to court it is definitely noteworthy. Doesn't make you guilty, but it means it wasn't a complete non-issue. Moving away from the rigorous needs of Wikipedia - if you were a blues fan, you would be pretty certain Zeppelin were guilty of plagiarism. The first album is made up almost entirely of cuts from blues songs, despite the bizzare original writing credits (some of which have since been changed by Atlantic records to include the original blues artists - another quite clear sign of guilt). I've never understood the denial of many Zep fans on this issue - even the band don't contest this claim, they merely point out that plagiarism was rampant in those days. I'm not sure one really does need more evidence than this!!!--Zoso Jade (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't think Led Zeppelin constitutes as Heavy Metal, and it may constitute as Arena Rock and Soft Rock instead. --Willis (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG ! Led Zeppelin is one of the band that formed Heavy Metal (other one Black Sabbath) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.212.203 (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What we need to consider is both the historical and present definitions of "heavy metal". People forget that in its earliest years the music most commonly labeled "heavy metal" by critics and the listening public was essentially overdriven blues-rock. After a chain of stylistic shifts that stretches from Black Sabbath to Iron Maiden to Metallica to Napalm Death and beyond sped the music up, established a codified image and lyrical stance and successfully expunged nearly all blues influence, what was now referred to simply as "metal" had changed irrevocably. But the historical meanings of the genre/label are no less valid than the current ones, and if we remove the "heavy metal" tag we risk perpetuating the kind of pop-cultural amnesia that articles like this are supposed to guard against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted this (slightly different) down in a much less intelligent (sorry, but it is true; the people are not less intelligent, the debate itself didn't have as much thought put into it), and I am figuring putting this in both places will help promote the opinion of those who feel the same about this. And as for prog rock, that label doesn't fit Zep.

(For anyone who read this below, changes are in brackets, and a couple are important enough to take notice of)

I see the point of debating that [they are metal, but it simply isn't true]. The "general view of the public" is just as much opinion as the view of the fans, and the view of the fans is what is more important here. Most Zep fans don't see them as metal. The general public is basing their opinions on what they've heard, but is someone from the general public going to hear "Black Mountainside", "The Battle of Evermore", or "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do"? And even what the general public hears as metal is highly debatable. [A person who listens to much softer music is going to see anything heavier as metal. Most opinions of people who don't listen to a band will categorize them relative to their own music.] A lot of people have a hard time [even] pinning Rush as metal, and I have heard every studio recording of both bands in full and I can tell you nothing Zep has comes close to being as heavy as the later portion of Rush's works. I think, if they are listed as metal, it should clearly say "(debated)" afterwards, as that is the only accurate way you can describe Zep as metal. [That would also stop this type of debate, as people like me won't see them clearly listed as heavy metal and go to have it corrected (after discussion, obviously). This will always be a subject of heated debate, so it would be just as erroneous to leave it as it is as it would be to take it out.]

66.41.202.126 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (I have an account but am too lazy to remember my sign-in info)

Do editors realise that the journalists who first labelled the band as "heavy metal" were the same ones who bagged them? I question the objectivity of some of the sources, given the inherent bias of some of the earlier descriptive accounts of the band. Today we have the phenomenon of wikiality - where what's been said in wikipedia is picked up and repeated elsewhere. It is my contention that the same process happened with Led Zeppelin - because some critics said it, it simply trickled down through various other publications. It should be also noted that not every reviewer referred to the band as "heavy metal". HelenWatt (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon of wikiality? Wikiality is a long dead comedy routine from Stephen Colbert. It doesn't/shouldn't exist as an argument for anything on an encyclopedia. Led Zeppelin were the first real heavy metal band. The fact that they don't sound like any modern heavy metal bands makes no difference. Thin Lizzy, Cream, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Blue Oyster Cult and every other original heavy metal band doesn't sound like contemporary heavy metal either. But it is still heavy metal. Peter Fleet (talk)

The first people to call Led Zeppelin were the critics of the band. They were not heavy metal then, nor are they now. HelenWatt (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Professional critics pass WP:RS on Wikipedia. It wouldn't matter if they all issued the same statement claiming "Led Zeppelin are a heavy metal band that sucks". Their opinions as to whether they enjoyed the band's music have no bearing what-so-ever on their merit as a reliable source as to what style of music they said it was. The fact that Led Zeppelin were labeled a heavy metal band long before any other early 1970s heavy metal band is all that is needed for reliable sourcing for Wikipedia. Every book written about the subject has Led Zeppelin on page one. Every video documentary ever filmed on the subject places the band front and centre as a showpiece musical act. It's like the recent VH1 documentary about heavy metal says... "when you stack every individual element that made up Led Zeppelin - from their look, their sound, their mystery and their sheer onstage power as a band - Led Zeppelin were the ultimate example of what a heavy metal band was - and still is" Black Sabbath sounded like John Mayall's Bluesbreakers prior to Led Zeppelin's first album. In their own video biography all the members of Black Sabbath said they weren't exactly sure what musical path to take until they heard that album. Deep Purple were a psychedelic rock band until Ritchie Blackmore heard Led Zeppelin and said "I want to play music like that". There is a long list of early heavy metal bands that changed their original styles by leaps and bounds following the first 2 Led Zeppelin releases. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"The fact that Led Zeppelin were labeled a heavy metal band long before any other early 1970s heavy metal band is all that is needed for reliable sourcing for Wikipedia." Patently not true. The term was not used in published form until 1970. The term was first used for bands such as Humble Pie (1970), Lord Baltimore (1971), and Blue Oyster Cult (as stated itself on wikipedia), long before it was used for Led Zeppelin. Led Zeppelin was not called "Heavy metal" until a Lester Bangs review in May 1973. That's two years after it was first used in print, and four years after their first album. "Every book written about the subject has Led Zeppelin on page one." A broad sweeping generalisation that is again patently not true. Here's a few examples for you: Ian Christie's Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, Garry Sharpe-Young Metal: The Definitive Guide, David Konow's Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal. All regard Led Zeppelin as not being heavy metal, and the history of heavy metal is begun by other bands such as Black Sabbath, not Led Zeppelin Please desist in your untruthful claims. HelenWatt (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This horse is already dead. No need to beat it anymore. Let it rest in peace. They are a heavy metal band, they are a hard rock band, they are a blues-rock band, they are a folk rock band, the are a rock band.. etc, etc, etc. Next to Canadian heavy metal band Rush... they were/are one of the greatest bands of all time. 'nuff said. RIP Mr. Horse. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

May I just point out to everyone that if a painter paints a picture, and it is supposed to be a broom, you don't say, "that's a gorilla because it looks like a gorilla!" Even if it does look like a gorilla, if the artist says it is a broom, then it is completely inaccurate to call it a gorilla. The closest you would get is calling it a broom that looks like a gorilla. The members of Led Zeppelin have said that their music isn't heavy metal. Part of any work of art through any medium is the artist's mindset through their work. If a song is played with the feeling that it is metal, some of that feeling will come out through the music, because they are trying to reach a certain standard. However, if they aren't trying to make it metal, then that classification won't be able to fully describe the song, because similarities would be incidental, and the emotional aspect of metal would not be there. And for anyone who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, take a philosophy course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.202.126 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And Lemmy claims that Motorhead aren't a heavy metal band either. Led Zeppelin played many genres of music. And heavy metal was one of them. Fair Deal (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Soft Rock

I feel that soft rock could be added as a genre the band plays. Soft rock has greatly influenced them and some soft rock is seen in their songs. I think this topic would require some input. Thanks.--Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Which songs are you referring to? Edelmand (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. In a band article the genre statement should reflect what the band was known for, not every type of music they ever played. LZ was a very versatile band, and "rock" neatly encompasses everything they did. Jgm (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there could just be added some sentences concerning soft rock in the article or for the song article of [All My Love]]. The article for soft rock even mentions this Led Zeppelin song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.57.130 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

intro

it says they WERE a band. they still ARE a band? right?

Led Zeppelin are not Heavy Metal

This needs to change. Led Zeppelin was and isnt "heavy metal", that term was created by the media to undermine Zeppelin in their hayday as 'mindless noise'. Also it is clear that Zeppelin are not a metal band so please stop labelling them Heavy Metal, seriously, Black Sabbath is predominantly metal, not Zeppelin, you can tell the difference if you LISTEN. Most importantly, What about psychedelic rock???? 'Dazed and confused', 'How many more times'? 'Communication Breakdown', Even 'Whole lotta love'- the list goes on, Especially when performed live, Zeppelin were especially psychedelic! the evidence is there, listen!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukestar1991 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No editor should decide what goes into Wikipedia by making their own personal deductions, no matter how valid they believe them to be, please see the policy on no original research and the policy that states all data in Wikipedia be verifiable, which includes striking a balance if those reliable sources disagree with each other.--Alf ^melmac 18:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Alf's responding statement, as the word "regarded" in the lead text suggests a generally accepted view among sources and the public. Lukestar1991 is right about what many aficionados see as heavy metal, but the term is tied to the band by a burden of published material over nearly 40 years, and Wikipedia is not the place for challenging such a history with personal opinion. Sswonk (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the point of debating that, but I must agree with Lukestar here: Zep is most certainly not metal. The "general view of the public" is just as much opinion as the view of the fans, and the view of the fans is what is more important here. Most Zep fans don't see them as metal. The general public is basing their opinions on what they've heard, but is someone from the general public going to hear "Black Mountainside", "The Battle of Evermore", or "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do"? And even what the general public hears as metal is highly debatable. A lot of people have a hard time pinning Rush as metal, and I have heard every studio recording of both bands in full and I can tell you nothing Zep has comes close to being as heavy as the later portion of Rush's works. I think, if they are listed as metal, it should clearly say "(debated)" afterwards, as that is the only accurate way you can describe Zep as metal. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (I have an account but am too lazy to remember my sign-in info)

References from reliable sources will always outweigh errant editor personal opinions. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Plagurism Section

It seems to me that the plagurism section is very baised towards Led Zeppelin as it seems to be makeing excuses for them. I feel it should be expanded to include more negative quotations one the subject. I also take issue on the way it impleies that most Blues songs are somehow all "borrowed" with is vastly unture. The whole idea of "floating lyrics" really existed in Pre War blues music when musican operated in a culture were the concept intellectual property didn't exist. Most of the Blues songs didn't use this, those songs which did still were original works which Zepplein stole. Also there are many non blues songs that Led Zep plagurised which can't be explained away by these theoies of "borrowed music".

To make I'm not saying to make it seem to attack Led Zep but to make it a more unbaisedFSAB (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not really a musical concept. The freedom of expression in music is such that the lyrics are secondary to the "groove" or "set" that is presented by a given band. Now that Led Zeppelin "pilfered" some lyrics, and now that "the Beatles" and "the Rolling Stones" credited their lyrics to a given recording, there is no question. I think the question is, whether the music of Led Zeppelin was impossible without the recordings of earlier blues artists. I say no, and have only been inspired by Led Zep to purchase a good collection by Dixon and Waters and other blues artists. I think the real effect of the songs on the early Zep albums was beneficial to the bottom line of the artists involved and was not stealing, but better stated a reworking of their brilliant recordings. Sswonk (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how not crediting and not paying royalties to "the bottom line of the artists" was at all beneficial. I'm all for freedom of expression but that in no way excuses what Zeppelin did, claiming that they wrote songs written by other people and takeing all the credit and royalties, surely the concept of freedom of expression means that people are free to create without fear of theft. I'm not on a mission to sully Zeppelins name but i think that this article should tell the whole story, warts and all, with out makeing excusses for them.FSAB (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Countdown: 10 Songs Led Zeppelin Stole From Other Artists http://earfarm.com/features/daily-feature/monday/1820

Led Zeppelin - Jimmy Page.. Plagiarism? http://en.allexperts.com/q/Led-Zeppelin-501/f_3722451_3659.htm LED ZEPPELIN'S INFLUENCES Originals? http://www.turnmeondeadman.net/Zep/Originals.php These are not simply "borrowed" or re-arranged traditional blues and folksongsCuvtixo (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be pro or anti LZ. It should just state the simple facts. Some of their songs did indeed originate from other artists and they were sued for it. Easy. No whitewashes and no blagarding, just the truth. Deke42 (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure I want to reopen this, but as long as there is a plagiarism section, rather than just focusing on blues music, I wonder if allegations of Jimmy Page's "White Summer" being lifted from Davey Graham's "She walked thro' the Fair" belong, especially as "White Summer" became the basis for "Over the Hills and Far Away"? I would point out that these allegations are on the song pages already, and it counterbalances Page's claim that they never stole guitar licks. Also, just my own two cents into the plagiarism legal argument - plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement, and so the whole question of it never being proved in court is irrelevant.Kaiguy (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the classification debate.

Since this was overlooked in my earlier post, I will just make a separate section with my solution to the metal debate. Please note we are not arguing whether Led Zeppelin can be considered heavy metal or not, but whether this suggestion will appease everyone.
We should just add "(debated)" after heavy metal in the infobox, and we should change "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands." to "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, although that is a subject of much debate." or something to that effect.
If we do this, then it won't be as if we were stating for a fact that they were metal, but we wouldn't be dismissing it, either. And if we need a citation for that, all we would need to do is link them to the discussion page.
If this solution is not accepted, then at the very least, in the infobox, heavy metal should be listed last, as second naturally makes people think it is more applicable than the following (yeah, bad choice of words, but I can't really think of a better way to say it) Unoriginal Username (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, considering how quick people are to flame when they see something they don't like, and how this has been sitting here for over a week, I'm going to assume no one has any objections to this. I'll leave it for one more day and if no one responds, I'll just go ahead and change it. Unoriginal Username (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need (debated), or any other flag. It isn't about editor opinion. It is about references from reliable sources. Are there is an abundance of reliable sources that label them as heavy metal. Most label them as "the first." The consensus, on both discussion pages and throughout the history of the article itself, is that the label is valid. Just as is. Do not alter it away from this consensus or it will be reverted. Fair Deal (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering how vehemently it is being argued here, I would say there has been no consensus. I have no problem with metal, and I wouldn't see Led Zeppelin any differently if they were considered metal. However, that label just isn't correct. Read the article on heavy metal and tell me how well it fits. If Zeppelin doesn't quite fit into Wiki's definition of metal, then logically they can't be called metal. And one more thing to keep in mind here: Language isn't static. Zep may have been considered metal back in their time, but metal doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. How about we do the same with the word gay (not meant to offend, meant to prove a point). Gay meant happy back then (I think that is the right era, but that really doesn't matter), so everyone who was considered happy back then would be gay now, regardless of the evolution of the term (I know I said we're not debating whether or not they're metal...)? I guess my point is: If there is so little agreement on what is essentially opinion, you can't pass it off as fact. It would be a big mistake to ignore the objections, just as it would be a mistake to omit it completely. Unoriginal Username (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is the FIRST TRUE METAL Band,and Kerrang, Hit Parader, Babblermouth and Metal Hammer explains that. From allmusic:

"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."

Allmusic's definition of metal: "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."

Kerrang 14/01/2009 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.”

Tony Iommi 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."

John Bonhan http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hcfrxqy5ldte~T1 "Across the ensuing decade, the band ruled the heavy metal landscape, and Bonham's drumming was a key part of their appeal."

Definition of New Wave of British Metal http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760 "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."

Judas Priest http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse "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;" Página do Iron Maiden no allmusic: 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..."

Led Zeppelin IS THE FIRT heavy metal band!!! Long live to true metal: Cream, Steppenwolf, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Grand Funk Railroad, Sir Lord Baltimore, Buffalo and Dust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.94.14 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ledzep sold over 250 million albums

There's mentioned that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 300 million albums. Since 25 September 2005 16:24 [2], is this mentioned like this way at Wikipedia. The article [3] (the source) however is published at 7 November 2005 (more than a month later than it was mentioned at Wikipedia). I can believe that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 250 million albums, but there is no (correct) claim (yet) that date before 25 September 2005 to suggest that they've sold more than 300 million albums. So, is it possible to change the 300 to 250 million, please. An official press release [4] claimed that Led Zeppelin sold 200 million albums. So, an album sale of 250 million worldwide anno 2009 is more realistic.

• see also Official site, over 200 million, July 27, 2007

Christo jones (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

All the given sources say 300 million and all sources pass [{WP:RS]]. So 300 million is fine. Wether B (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uninformal language

"One account of the band's naming, which has become almost legendary, has it that Keith Moon and John Entwistle, drummer and bassist for The Who, respectively, suggested that a possible supergroup containing themselves, Jimmy Page, and Jeff Beck would go over like a lead zeppelin, a term Entwistle used to describe a bad gig.[36]" Would it be possible to get somekind of another expression for this? It might seem biased to have the words "bad" when describing a supposed "supergroup". EmanCunha (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The idea of the phrase was that the idea was so bad that it wouldn't go over like a lead balloon (which crashes, right) but like a lead zeppelin (which would crash even worse, right). What's the problem? Maybe I don't understand the question.LedRush (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the wording needs to be improved. It's muddled. Moon was describing his *perception* of their planned supergroup as going over like a lead balloon, rather than implying it would be an actual *bad* gig. MegX (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it already abundantly clear. However, make a change and see how it works out.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Twenty million fans bid for Led Zeppelin comeback tickets

Sep 12, 2007

LONDON (AFP) — About 20 million fans have tried to get tickets for Led Zeppelin's one-off comeback concert, a spokesman for the gig said Thursday.

The rock legends are reforming for a tribute concert at London's O2 Arena on November 26. The former Millennium Dome venue in Greenwich can hold up to 20,000 people.

The three surviving members of the hard-rocking British band are to play together for the first time in 19 years in tribute to Ahmet Ertegun, the late founder of the Atlantic Records label, who signed the group in 1968.

About 80,000 fans per minute are trying to register for tickets at the www.ahmettribute.com website, said Internet service provider Pipex.

Demand for the 125-pound tickets also crashed the O2 Arena website.

"The message is to be patient. The website will be open until midday on September 17 for anyone wanting to register," said a spokesman for the concert.

"It is not 'first come, first served' and all successful applicants will be entered into the ballot for tickets to be drawn at random."

Led Zeppelin split in 1980 following the death of drummer John Bonham, who famously choked on his own vomit following a drinking binge.

Singer Robert Plant, guitarist Jimmy Page and bassist John Paul Jones, with Bonham's son Jason on drums, will headline the gig.

The Who's Pete Townshend, Bill Wyman and the Rhythm Kings, rock band Foreigner and Paolo Nutini will also play at the tribute from British artists who worked with Istanbul-born Ertegun.

Since Bonham's death, the remaining three have reunited only twice before, to play the 1985 Live Aid concert in Philadelphia and an Atlantic Records anniversary gig in 1988.

Led Zeppelin have sold more than 300 million albums worldwide.

The band were not keen on releasing singles, but their best-known songs include "Stairway to Heaven", "Kashmir", "Whole Lotta Love", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Nobody's Fault but Mine" and "Communication Breakdown".

[[5]]

[[6]]

< Only 20,000 tickets are available for this concert, convened as a tribute to the late Atlantic Records founder Ahmet Ertegun, who signed the group back in 1968. They sold so quickly, the internet server handling the requests crashed. And some 29,980,000 fans dipped out.>

--Roujan (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rock bands THAT INFLUENCED Led Zeppelin, Needs an INFLUENCES section

Other than mentions of who they plagiarised, this really should list the ROCK bands that influenced them, they didn't just appear out of thin air... There were rock bands playing like this live a couple years before, like Cream, Hendrix, Steve Marriott of the Small Faces, and The WHO especially. Please add a section on this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybritches (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (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)

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) striking sock

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)

Too many citations in the lead

Editors should read WP:LEADCITE, which gives details on when citations are and aren't required in lead sections. If you have to cite so many details in the lead section, the lead isn't general enough in scope. Try moving the specifics to the article body. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Been fixed. Previously there were 17 refs in the lede and now there are only 11. I've removed redundant ones and shifted others to the article body. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I currently see 20. The genre stuff in particular is best left to a "musical style" section, such as that in The Smashing Pumpkins. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

References being used in the first paragraph are 10 now (previously 17). No, the genre thing is also important in the lede as the The Smashing Pumpkins also mentions in the second paragraph "Disavowing the punk rock roots shared by many of their alt-rock contemporaries,[2] the Pumpkins have a diverse, densely layered, and guitar-heavy sound, containing elements of gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, arena rock, shoegazer-style production and, in later recordings, electronica". Scieberking (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that most of those details for The Smashing Pumpkins are cited and expanded upon in the article body. Really, what's important to know for the lead is that band's basic sound, not all the other genres it has dabbled in. Alss, there are too many comments about the band's legacy in the second paragraph. Remember, the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article. Keep the specifics to the article body. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, you should move these sentences to the article body: "Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also incorporated rockabilly,[6] reggae,[7] soul,[8] funk,[9] and country.[10]" and "Led Zeppelin are ranked #1 on VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock.[16] Rolling Stone magazine has described Led Zeppelin as "the heaviest band of all time", "the biggest band of the '70s" and "unquestionably one of the most enduring bands in rock history."[17][18] Similarly, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame describes Led Zeppelin being "as influential in that decade (70s) as the Beatles were in the prior one."[19]" WesleyDodds (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Pumpkins were NOT psychedelic rock but they dabbled in that genre with "Rhinoceros" or whatever. Secondly, I don't see any other problems with the lede. The legacy stuff is considerably important in the lede, for instance The Who, Beatles and Black Sabbath. Scieberking (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Pumpkins were influenced by psych. There's a difference between "influences' and "dabbling", the latter of which is too specific for an article introduction. As for the three articles you listed, Black Sabbath and The Who aren't exemplary articles, and The Beatles does not list a series of quotes about the band's impact. For Zep, all that needs to be said is that they have influenced lots of bands, which can then be elaborated on in the article. Frankly, I think the lead section here should be completely rewritten. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I took out the sentence "Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also incorporated rockabilly,[6] reggae,[7] soul,[8] funk,[9] and country.[10]" because only the last citation is a second-party reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the lede section is almost perfect. It does not have to be redone to make you feel good about it. What's your criteria for an "exemplary" article? I highly doubt this argument is helpful and healthy in any way. Bob Dylan, a featured article, does contain quote(s) in the lede. I would also like to remind you the previous lede section was given three of four votes via RFC to keep that version. Anyhow I made multiple compromises to mold it to the way you want it to look. Now, I don't see any need to melt it off more. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exemplary articles are featured articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Too short?

This article is far too short. Any suggestions how we can make it longer? 82.37.241.251 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article could be expanded in so many ways (for instance adding separate "Musical Style" and "Awards" sections), but this one IMO is already adequately long (however you can find even longer articles such as Bob Dylan and The Beatles).

• "Articles should not be [either] too big [or too small]" - From WP:TOOLONG.
• "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out" - From WP:SPLIT.

Hope this answers your question. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Can you PLEASE get rid of this pompous note in the editing:

Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin were a band.

This is a) simply not true (most importantly it is not in line with the style guide) and b) guaranteed to irritate any person who shares such an opinion.

By all means encourage editors to leave things as they are but any suggestion that every British English speaker is as stupid as the next should be avoided.

Thank you. 86.175.70.9 (talk) 02:27, 01 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read from here and here. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is not that anyone is stupid, but there are speakers of other variants of English who are ignorant of BrE conventions and would change "were" to "was" - some still do in spite of being told otherwise. MPFC1969 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

I notice how the magazine Rolling Stone is a major ground pillar in this article about the band Led Zeppelin, almost a Socrates-Platon relationship. The magazine Rolling Stone (who listed 20 Beatles albums in the top 10 of the best albums ever) have bombarded the band Led Zeppelin with praise since the dawn of their existence. (The Beatles reference was sarcastic, but has a valid point.) Does anyone see where I am going? This could remain a highly biased article (see Pink Floyd's article as an antithesis) with bloated and elevated illusions, or it could be rewritten. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you seem to have a long history of conflict with rules and applicable guidelines, personal attacks on other users, and general disruption. We aren't here to discuss how Rolling Stone Magazine sees and critiques a particular band. Its just a reliable source, and please do understand Wikipedia is not a public forum. Scieberking (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And what's your point with saying that? Or is it just another subtle insult you experienced editors are so good at? I merely stay at the more obvious side in my insults, hence, my "history". Sure, I won't question a reliable source and try cloud your impeccable judgment. All hail almighty wikipedia, the greatest second hand source page in the world. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scieberking that Rolling Stone is a reliable source and that's all that matters. But, for the record, Rolling Stone did not "bombard the band Led Zeppelin with praise since the dawn of their existence": read this Edelmand (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more interesting stuff from Mojo Magazine. Scieberking (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Beatles albums are on Rolling Stone because theyare considered more influential, and in my opinion, although I like heavy metal, I think the Beatles are altogether a better band. Another thing is that Black Sabbath was given terrible reviews until the mid 70's, which goes to show you that Rolling Stone gave the heavier music bad reviews until they got used to it and rated thing based on the mixing, the talent, and the overall function of the album itself. Rolling Stone, rated Tony Iommi at somewhere in the 80s in the best guitarists, and Duane Allman at 2, which makes no sense, because although Allman is a better guitarist, Iommi was much more influential than Allman, as Iommi set an example as to how to play the genre, while Allman sounded too much like Eric Clapton (who is at 4, although he is better than Allman too) as a blues rock guitarist. Metal was never the most loved by Rolling Stone, and never will be. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Genres

I'd like to suggest:

• Mellow Rock
• Psychedelic Rock
• Progressive Rock

AmericanLeMans (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You may need to provide citations to support your suggestions. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in checking this one out. Scieberking (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Led Zeppelin is not really metal (Black Sabbth is metal, Dio is metal) but harder rock. For one thing, they came out of the Yardbirds, an obviously blues/psychedelic rock band, and aren't really heavy enough to be metal. I don't even like Led Zeppelin, but I'm just saying they aren't metal. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre Discussion: Okay, let's stop all this...

Every time I see this article, I get annoyed at how heavy metal is listed as a genre. However, I can accept that they have been characterized as metal by some critics (most of whom, I'ld assume is basing that on one or two songs, but I'm wandering from my point here). Every time I go into the discussion page as well, 90 percent of the debate is whether Zeppelin can be called metal or not. Well, this is not a very productive way of doing things; if we can't have it one way or the other, we should reach some middle ground.
We can all agree that the meaning of some words and phrases change over time. I think the most notable piece here is not whether Zeppelin conforms to what we consider metal today, but whether or not the fact that they could be considered metal back in their time is relevant in classifying them today. Given that Zeppelin bears little resemblance to what we call metal today, we should put them into a sub-category like "Classic Heavy Metal" or whatever everyone thinks makes sense.
At this point, considering both sides of the discussion, there is no way you could keep the metal label in this article and there is no way you can completely remove it. Both sides have merit to their argument. The amount of debate that comes up on this subject is too important to ignore: if there are so many people bringing the subject up, there has to be some problem. This is not a black-and-white issue, there can and should be compromise on it.
What I find as the biggest problem, though, is that the voice of those who disagree with Zeppelin being labeled as heavy metal is being completely blocked out by those who agree with the metal label, and in most cases, that voice isn't big enough to be considered, but in this case, there are too many people who don't think Zeppelin fall under the category of metal. At the very least there should be something saying that the label heavy metal is not accepted by everyone (there is a much better way to say that, but I'm tired), and considering how easy it would be to make that change, how unobtrusive that statement would be, and how it is simple to see it is a fact, it makes more sense to throw it in just to quiet the dissenters down.
So, in summary, what we should do is put Zeppelin into a sub-category of the genre metal, something that implies that they are not what we would consider metal today, but they were back when they were playing.
Unoriginal Username (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're quite right, but there's sadly nothing we can do about it! If you see the archives, I've provided more scholarly work or intellectual garbage than anyone else on Wikipedia. At the same time, Led Zeppelin is one of the bands who didn't give a damn about such falderal things as genres. In a broader sense, Zeppelin is a rock n' roll band- and undeniably one of the greatest/ biggest/ most influential of all time. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! I've added Blues-rock to the "sound" in the intro, in an attempt to qualify the statement and to give it more of the breadth the band deserves.Koppenlady (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of all the groups from the 60s, 70s and 80s the Beatles could be called groundbreaking eclectic rock and roll/pop and Zep ground breaking eclectic heavy blues and rock. Both really transcend genres. However, the label freaks come out and stamp genre notes over everything based on as much minutae as possible (such as reggae for D'yer Maker - which is certainly more worthy of the title comedy or tongue-in-cheek than and form of reggae - certainly closer to calypso imho). Their foray into folk doesn't make them folk rock and more than the immigrant song makes them Valhalla rock (whatever that is ;-) ). I vote for eclectic blues and heavy rock only. Of course it's not a vote and no one will vote with me but I just wanted my 2 pence/cents worth. --Candy (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because Plant doesn't enjoy the label, doesn't mean that Zep are not a metal band. This group was one of the most important pioneers of heavy metal. Countless sources can be found to back this. I don't understand why anyone would not to remove the term from the box. If you're going to remove it from this band's box then you might as well remove it from Sabbath's as well (for the record Tony Iommi doesn't think Sabbath were metal either.) RG (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the founding members of Sabbath, Bill Ward, did accept the label "heavy metal":

"The date was February 13, 1970 — 40 years ago today — and the album Black Sabbath, by the band of the same name, had just been released. It gave birth not only to heavy metal, but also to a new kind of dance move for the working-class male: headbanging ----- To some extent we still consider ourselves a hard-rock band,” said Ward. “But that first album, when our lyrics changed, that is heavy metal. Was it the first heavy metal album, in every sense of the word? Yes it was. It was the beginning of a new era."

Source: Black Sabbath recall birth of heavy metal on its 40th anniversary by Chris Ayres of The Times.

As for the pioneers, Cream and The Jeff Beck Group were too.

Scieberking (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you've found reliable sources for Cream or the Jeff Beck group being heavy metal, then fine add it their boxes. And the main point in your Sabbath argument was one (key word, one) member, accepting the label. Tony doesn't approve the label. Plant's opinion and more importantly an editor's should not be taken into consideration. Making decisions based on Plant's, who is not a music journalist or historian, wishes is a violation of WP:NPOV. Sure you can mention his feeling on the genre in the article, but removing it from the box is borderline vandalism. RG (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the number of sources that call them metal, I think it's worth putting in the box. Maybe to appease both sides, we could label them as traditional heavy metal, or maybe have it link to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.125.191 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that reverting an article more than three times in a content dispute is prohibited by the three-revert rule. Reverts by all the IP addresses registered to AT&T Internet Services went way over this yesterday. Note that this rule applies per individial, not per IP address/account. While I'm glad you are now discussing it on the talk page, please do not edit in this way again. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What's more, actually deciding that it's somehow OK to randomly remove it is utterly un-Wikipedian. There are nearly bottomless sources (including from metal artists) on Zeppelin's metal status. Musically, they can not only be compared to Sabbath at times, but also to various contemporary metal artists.

Also, to respond to RG, I think Ozzy also accepts the label. As a matter of fact, I've got a quote from Ozzy that's extremely relevant here.

“All that stuff about heavy metal and hard rock, I don't subscribe to any of that. It's all just music. I mean, the heavy metal from the Seventies sounds nothing like the stuff from the Eighties, and that sounds nothing like the stuff from the Nineties. Who's to say what is and isn't a certain type of music?”

Anyway, I expect that this argument has gone on over and over and over again as many times here as on every other place on the entire internet. Plus, we have the hard rock tag in front of heavy metal, which always seems to symbolize said genre's significance in a band's repertoire. People always seem to just ignore this as though Wikipedia is tagging that band they kinda like exclusively as "brutal-death-black-crunk-electro-porno-grind-super-monkey-metal" or something, and that's just not how we roll.

And just in case my actual argument here isn't impressive enough, I'll add in a silly little scary-but-true shocker:

People on the internet tell me about how un-metal Sabbath is and how they don't sound anything like modern metal.

Sweet dreams. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Since this is the Led Zeppelin talk page I don't have any comments about Black Sabbath or Metallica but if anyone is interested in what was being written about Led Zeppelin and heavy metal music when Zeppelin was still in existence, here are are few excerpts:

"These days you encounter all manner of groups in heavy-metal territory. Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult, and others are all out there kicking up decibels while they mine the metal lodes. But there was a time, about five years ago, when Led Zeppelin had the field pretty much to itself." (Popson, Thomas. "Tarnish Showing Around Led Zeppelin's Edges" Chicago Tribune May 13, 1973: E9)

"Led Zeppelin is among the founding fathers and leading advocates of a brand of music that goes by the label of 'heavy-metal-rock.'" (Edwards, Henry. "There's Art in the Led Zep's Heavy-Metal Hullabaloo" New York Times February 2, 1975: X20)

"It was the dawn of what would later come to be known as heavy metal music — a sound perpetrated by groups like Iron Butterfly, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath and perfected, many would say, by the heaviest and most metallic entity imaginable: Led Zeppelin." (Zito, Tom. "Led Zeppelin Flying High" Washington Post February 10, 1975: B1)

"The band is rightly recognized as the grandaddy of 1970's 'heavy metal' bands, and the term 'heavy metal' is generally thought to refer to a monstrously expanded variant on the basic blues form." (Rockwell, John. "Led Zeppelin and the Alchemy of a Rock Group" New York Times June 5, 1977: D19)

For present day assessments, there's always Allmusic and Rolling Stone:

"Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band."

"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." Piriczki (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal as the genre is recognized today. However, it is clear that large portions of the music media refer to them as such. This is not only true for the time that they actually were heavy metal, but in the present day. I do not think that our personal opinions in this matter are relevant (and may be original research if not supported by citations), and that with citations, the assessment of the group as a heavy metal (among other genres) bands should be allowed. Certainly heavy metal remained a part of their music throughout their career and was at least as much of their sound as blues rock and more than as much as folk rock.LedRush (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from My talk page (Mlpearc)

Not a heavy metal band? You do realize just how many sources there are on this subject and that this band was one of the definitive early metal bands, right? I see it almost as borderline vandalism to remove a tag, so well referenced. If Aerosmith can be called metal under the loose wikipedia definition then I don't see why an undeniable metal band can't. RG (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to my edit here Diff.Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying the Zeppelin article has been here for awhile and I'm sure there has been many discussions about what should be listed under "Genre" in the infobox. If you disagree with the genre then I suggest you take it to the talk page. As a matter of fact I'll do that for you. Moving this discussion to Led Zeppelin talk from my talk Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

::I disagree, the discussion should take place here. This dicussion is more open to the public that way and it belongs here. RG (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

SIR RG talk, you need to slow down I did move the discussion here, you were the one who left the message at my talk after my edit, Please try to keep your posts stright, And quit posting your comments on this discussion my talk, like you just did again. I will paste your comment you just left on my talk back here. Please slow down ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic, issues of Rolling Stone, issues of Spin, VH1's Heavy: the Story of metal, Peter Buckley's The Rough Guide to Rock, Robert Walser's Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music, etc. all cite this group as a heavy metal band. It's serious POV pushing not to include the label. RG (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Relax, relax Mlpearc. It's late and I'm heading off to bed. I'll pick up with this tommorrow. RG (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am relaxed, you are editting so fast I've typed this all at least three times because every time I click save I get an edit conflict.... SLOW DOWN. Have a good night Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is one of change of terms. I would never call Zep heavy metal. Some of their songs are but in general I don't feel the whole band are (see my post above). However, its possibly because I am a dinosaur and grew up with these bands. The English language mutates and changes rapidly. I remember when gay meant happy and hacker was a code creator and cracker was a code breaker. Hacker is now the term, for cracker. I guess we all have to get over this and follow the Wikipedia guidelines. It's not really borderline vandalism though, Rockgenre, but PPOV and lack of self-reflection and realisation perpetuating dogma. --Candy (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has a long history of disruption and edit warring. The person behind the IP addresses involved went way over WP:3RR and action had to be taken. I originally semi-protected the page and reverted to the revision pre-dating the edit war as it appeared to be disruption coming from unregistered users, but given this is clearly a wider dispute I have now fully protected the page to prevent further edit warring. The genres have once again been reverted back to the version pre-dating the edit war to prevent rewarding of edit warring, as established by WP:PREFER. Those wanting the genres section changed are obliged to discuss it here and reach a consensus. I have no opinion on what the genres of Led Zeppelin should be, but no matter how right a side thinks they are, edit warring is not an option. I will unprotect the page once a consensus is reached. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's move it back to the article's page where is belongs. RG (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's what I did. I don't get your meaning. Thats why it says above "This discussion has been move to" Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohh crap, sorry. It's almost one in the morning here in New York, I glanced over that quickly, and I don't have my contacts in. I thought it read "Moved to my talk page." Simple misunderstanding. RG (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would like it known that I reverted "ONE EDIT" and I am not edit warring. I made the one edit and the rest has been moved From my talk to here. Also I feel that Led Zeppelin genre is as stated in their infobox, other genre's may have grown from them but their roots are deep in Hard rock, blues-rock . And thanks for the full protection of the article. Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I had noticed that you had only made one revert Mlpearc, compared to a lot more from the unregistered user, which is why neither you, nor any of the other parties that reverted well within 3RR were warned or blocked. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:Camaron Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath was/is the first true heavy metal band

• Even though Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Cream, and Deep Purple had a profound influence on the emergence of hard rock and heavy metal music, Black Sabbath was the first true heavy metal band. So you'd like to know what Heavy Metal is? A guide by Tom Servo "Robot"

• Significant Facts About Black Sabbath- Considered to be the first true heavy metal band. About.com: Classic Rock Guide

• British band whose bludgeoning brand of rock defined the term heavy metal in the 1970s. Black Sabbath (British rock group)- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

• Black Sabbath is credited with creating heavy metal. The success of their first two albums - Black Sabbath and Paranoid - marked a paradigm shift in the world of rock. Not until Black Sabbath upended the music scene did the term “heavy metal” enter the popular vocabulary to describe the denser, more thunderous offshoot of rock over which they presided. With their riff-based songs, extreme volume, and dark, demonic subject matter, Black Sabbath embodied key aspects of the heavy-metal aesthetic. Black Sabbath Biography- The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum

• Black Sabbath, the creators of the sound known as heavy metal, had been passed over by the Hall's foundation three times, and Osbourne took it upon himself to speak out against the institution which continued to ignore his band's place in history. Lamentations of the Flame Princess - Heavy Metal Print Zine

• This weekend marks the 40th anniversary of Black Sabbath’s eponymous debut album, released on February 13th, 1970…a Friday, of course. Their first album featured a new, moody and darkly atmospheric brand of rock music, and has long been considered the first true heavy metal album. "February 13th, 1970, a celebration of Black Sabbath's 40th anniversary" on Examiner

• The true genre of heavy metal music began in 1969 with the release of the first Black Sabbath album. All of the music prior to Black Sabbath, such as Blue Cheer, Steppenwolf, and others was just a warm-up for the real heavy metal. "Heavy Metal Music- A New Subculture in American Society: The Journal of Popular Culture" by Robert L. Gross

Scieberking (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

All basically hype. Zeppelin and Deep Purple formed the same year as Sabbath from what I recall. They also played music typically as disparate as Sabbath's from Hendrix and Cream.

Your first source appears to be a fictional wisecracking robot made out of spare parts. I have no clue what About.com's reliability is viewed as. In my experience it's been all over the place. Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame could probably be viewed as reliable, but their saying "Black Sabbath is credited with creating heavy metal" contradicts other sources.

"Not until Black Sabbath upended the music scene did the term “heavy metal” enter the popular vocabulary to describe the denser, more thunderous offshoot of rock over which they presided" is impossible to disprove, only because several other bands were being labeled with the same term around the same time. Slightly earlier, as well, but it (the term) basically took shape in the '70s from what I gather.

"Influenced by the reigning British blues bands - Led Zeppelin, Cream, John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers - the four of them formed Earth Blues Company (shortened to Earth), in 1968" seems rather silly considering Zep would have to have been reigning over the scene from the underground - they hadn't even released an album, yet! That they could have anything resembling Cream's status in less than a year of existence (their first show was in October of 1968) and with no releases significant or otherwise is astonishing. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, the term "heavy metal" was really employed in early 70s and Sabbath was the first true metal band, as the Britannica Encyclopedia source implies. Scieberking (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rock magazines from the '60s would imply that the term itself was coined in the '60s. The usages from back then that Wiki already has taken note of are referring to what seems to be (by current definition) 'heavy blues,' however. The somewhat infamous 'first true usage' was CREEM's 1971 review of Sir Lord Baltimore's "Kingdom Come" album. This review also seems to shed a little light on what was "heavy music" (Zappa also uses this term in 200 Motels to describe Grand Funk, Sabbath and Coven) in that window of time, comparing SLB to Grand Funk, Zeppelin, Blue Cheer and MC5. Also noteworthy is the way he phrases it. Instead of "OHMYGOD THIS IS THE INVENTION OF A NEW STYLE! I DUB THEE 'HEAVY METAL'! ABBRA CASABBRA," he basically says "Oh. Here's another one of those heavy metal albums. I didn't like those other metal albums, but I thought this one was pretty ok."

This makes me think that the music already had something of a 'scene' gravitating to it and -up until this point at least- said scene utilized the term 'heavy metal' more than general rock critics were willing to.

Finally, 'true metal' could be anything, especially if it's differentiated by something other than listening to the music itself. I've seen people say Venom was the first 'true metal' band. (Albert Mond (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Well, Albert, for the record, the term "Heavy metal" was in fact coined by the legendary William S. Burroughs in 1962.

---

• The expression first appears in print in William Burroughs' 1962 novel The Soft Machine. His character Uranian Willy is described as "the Heavy Metal Kid". Burroughs later re-used the term in his 1964 novel Nova Express:

"With their diseases and orgasm drugs and their sexless parasite life forms - Heavy Metal People of Uranus wrapped in cool blue mist of vaporized bank notes - And the Insect People of Minraud with metal music."

It isn't clear who first appropriated the term to refer to loud rock music, although several lay claim to it. The widely quoted description of Jimi Hendrix's music as 'like listening to heavy metal falling from the sky', while being a fairly accurate assessment, isn't the earliest.

Some claim that the US rock music critic Lester Bangs, while working for Creem magazine, used the expression in 1968 to describe a performance of the band MC5 (Motor City Five) from Detroit. Creem magazine themselves attribute the term to Mike Saunders, in an article about the 'Kingdom Come' album, by Sir Lord Baltimore, in the May 1971 edition of the magazine:

"This album is a far cry from the currently prevalent Grand Funk sludge, because Sir Lord Baltimore seems to have down pat most all the best heavy metal tricks in the book. Precisely, they sound like a mix between the uptempo noiseblasts of Led Zeppelin (instrumentally) and singing that’s like an unending Johnny Winter shriek: they have it all down cold, including medium or uptempo blasts a la LZ, a perfect carbon of early cataclysmic MC5."

This has the benefit of being a traceable citation, as copies of the edition are still extant. So, until other hard evidence is found, that has to be the current strongest claim. It would be surprising if the term had never been used in the musical context before 1971 though - after all Steppenwolf used it in the lyric of their 1968 song Born to be Wild:

"I like smoke and lightning-

Heavy metal thunder- Racin' with the wind-

And the feelin' that I'm under"

---

Sabbath were the initiators who considerably helped discard (Judas Priest further did around the mid-70s) much of the blues influence from "blues-infused heavy rock". The result, IMO, eventually became the "pure heavy metal"- dark, detuned, and "gloomy doomy". Just possibly you may agree. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics will have differing opinions, it's human nature. And one of your sources Scieberking (About.com) isn't consistent with the "Black Sabbath theory." For instance another article by them states, "Groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were the first heavy metal bands." The point of the matter is that enought sources call Zeppelin a metal band and one of the most influential in its history. RG (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cuz' both articles were written by different authors- "Chad Bowar" and "Dave White". Both discover entirely different subjects- "Heavy Metal Timeline" and "Biography of Black Sabbath". And are classified as belonging to two totally different genres by the parent company- "Heavymetal.about.com" and "Classicrock.about.com". Makes sense? Cheers Scieberking (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• I bet the editors at "ASK.com" weren't even born during these bands "hay-days" to youngsters these days any Hard rock now falls under a "Metal" genre. Bands like Zeppelin, Sabbath and Deep Purple are all blues based hard rock, Metal started around maybe "Metallica" maybe a little before. Besides this is a broken record discussion. Cheers Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would like point out my opinion: I think Steppenwolf's lyrics in Born to be Wild are refering to "Booze,Weed and Harley's" not Heavy Metal music ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're kidding me here. Metallica wasn't even the first thrash band, let alone one of the first metal bands. The whole "metal started in the '80s" school of thought doesn't make any sense at all. In that case, there were metal fans before there was metal. There were bands (such as BOC and Judas Priest) who referred to themselves as "metal" before there was metal. Glam metal and metal would come into shape at exactly the same time, so nobody would have any reason to say one was overly-commercial and barely even metal most of the time as they'd basically both be canon. The New Wave of British Heavy Metal would not only also be the first wave, but would have been started in the '80s by bands who formed and released albums in the '70s. There would also be "heavy metal discos" before there was metal. Record execs would be looking for bands to help them capture the metal niche before metal. Leather, the occult, paganism, Vikings, satanism, the paranormal, sex and war would all be "metal" before the existence of metal. The entire thing's a paradox. (Albert Mond (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

I was really surpised that the random IPs were actually the ones adding back metal to the infobox and it was the experienced users who were the ones removing it. Scieberking, you are a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, correct? Isn't your motto that you don't want knowledge to be lost? By removing the genre, you are removing the knowledge that Zeppelin were a pioneering metal band. Even if you believe the calling the group a heavy metal band is false, you shouldn't remove it. As one of my old friends pointed out to me when I first came to this website, Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's really about verifiability. RG (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey RG. Seems you haven't read my reply to your comment on my talk page- pretty much clarifies my position on the issue. Also, the article still clearly states that the band is "one of the progenitors of heavy metal (music)". Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. And RG... I forgot to ask. What's the source where Iommi denies the metal label? I've never found it. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Tony always prefered and called Sabbath heavy rock, have you seen VH1's Heavy: the Story of Metal? Geezer I know use to refer to the group as a "heavy pop" outfit, but in more recent years Butler seems to shun the pop label and embrace metal. RG (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal as the genre is recognized today. However, it is clear that large portions of the music media refer to them as such. This is not only true for the time that they actually were heavy metal, but in the present day. I do not think that our personal opinions in this matter are relevant (and may be original research if not supported by citations), and that with citations, the assessment of the group as a heavy metal (among other genres) bands should be allowed. Certainly heavy metal remained a part of their music throughout their career and was at least as much of their sound as blues rock and more than as much as folk rock.LedRush (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you LedRush, you basically summed up my point quite well and very professionally. What an editor or Plant believes isn't relevant. The sources are what is relevant. Having heavy metal in the infobox is pretty well justified with this group. RG (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To elaborate on my position, I do think that Robert Plant's opinion is more important than an editor's (though an editor's opinion is important), it is not dispositive. Wikipedia's policy on weight is as relevant here as anywhere. If there are enough opinions which report something as a certain way, we should report this as significant. I believe (without evidence, mind you), that Led Zeppelin is referred to more as heavy metal more than folk rock, and perhaps more than any sub-genre of rock. A google search of the terms supports this position, but of course cannot prove it completely. However, ours is not the job of deciding completely...we report significant opinions and allow others to read the article with all important and verifiable reporting.LedRush (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can not (in my mind) think of Zeppelin as a "Folk" rock band just as much as I can not think of them as "Heavy Metal". But I'm an Old timer, it seem that if we place them in those genres we are putting them on the the same list as Peter, Paul and Mary and Metallica Note: I love both of those bands, it's not to hard to think Zeppelin and Metallica in the same thought but it's hard to put them in with peter, paul and mary Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So should we re-add "heavy metal" to the genre list? Or should we wait until everyone agrees? 75.57.125.191 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we should wait until everyone agrees. There are clearly users who disagree with having Sabbath tagged as 'metal,' but there's a vast number of reliable sources that can back up both Zeppelin and Sabbath. (Albert Mond (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

I'l re-add it, then. EDIT: Actually, wait, I can't. Someone else do it. 75.57.125.191 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked for another 10 days, but unless someone makes a cogent argument why the many verifiable sources can't be included in the article, I don't see any reason not to re-add it.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well by today standards Black Sabbath has kind of a pop sound. But don't be too offended because in the 60s Jimi Hendrix was pop.--Craigboy (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys! Here I put forward a "compromise proposal", in all honesty, and to help avoid edit wars. REMINDER: I was an uninvolved party in the edit war.

---

Genres = Heavy rock, blues-rock, proto heavy metal, folk rock

---

Let me know your thoughts. Sincerely, Scieberking (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The way the box was originally was fine. Hard rock, heavy metal, blues-rock, and folk rock sum up the band pretty well. I don't think putting the "proto" tag in front of the metal link is necessary. We wouldn't do that for Sabbath, would we? RG (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

*If "Proto" means "Early Developers" I can live with that. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Second thought forget it, I'm with RG Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing genres for which there is no Wikipedia article will never fly, nor will using easter egg links. Piriczki (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the others. We have tons of verifiable and notable sources for "heavy metal", and I've never even heard of "proto metal" before (I assume we have less cites for that tag, if any at all). "Heavy metal" obviously belongs, and no amount of original research can stop it.LedRush (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shark Episode

you need to add and explain the shark episode that was held at the edgewater inn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a page called Shark episode which deals with this subject Edelmand (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Important influences

I was pleased to find that Madonna, Katie Melua and Gabriella Cilm have all been listed as influenced by Zeppelin, I always thought I could hear "Whole Lotta Love" in Melua's song about bicycles and "Black Dog" in Madonna's "Material Girl". Joking apart, perhaps this list would seem a bit more encyclopedic if it was limited to artists where a major influence can be heard in their music. Some of these acts will claim an influence because it seems cool, but they are influenced by Zeppelin in the way I am influenced by James Last - honestly you wouldn't notice.--SabreBD (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd. I understand your point but this, apart from being very well-referenced, does elaborate the fact that Led Zeppelin have had a vast influence in many genres of popular music. Cheers. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

First Gig

Much as I'm quite pleased that the Newcastle Mayfair is listed as the first gig (as I used to live there), my understanding was that their first gig was at the Roundhouse at Chalk Farm, London - it's just part of the mythology - when you pass it on the train going into London, people tend to say - "that's where Zeppelin played their first gig !".

According to the official website their first gig at the Roundhouse wasn't until around a month after the Mayfair gig, However the first 'Live' use of the name Led Zeppelin was on October 25th 1968 at Surrey University, Battersea London - so it looks like we're both wrong. Of course the official website could be wrong - in which case the reference here is wrong too - as it refers to exactly that website.

78.32.193.115 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

TMK, it's Mayfair Ballroom at October 4, 1968. You could be right or wrong, but Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What genre can be confirmed?

If this article was gold locked because people are upset about assigning genre, all you guys need to do is find various opinions on the Internet from music experts. Your own opinions are irrelevant. If you editors can find sources that give Led Zeppelin credit for beginning metal, good. Post it, and source it. What we're in charge of doing is finding usable information and listing it.

If hundreds of music sources think Led Zeppelin is hard rock and another hundred think the band's heavy metal, then Led Zeppelin is both for the purpose of this article. I repeat: your own opinions are irrelevant. What can you find on the Internet? Let's get this article off Gold Lock. fds^Talk 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't Heavy Metal a subgenre of hard Rock? in that case there's no contradiction. CentraCross (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin were definitely a heavy metal band. Read any book about the history of metal, watch any documentary, Led Zeppelin is considered as one of the first heavy metal bands. Many other rock and metal musicians have confirmed that and they know something about music. We are complete amateurs here in wikipedia. We don't really know nothing about the subject. We should listen to what some real experts and musicians say because they know the truth. JNCooper (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Find sources that provide useful information, and put the information on this article.fds^Talk 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had already done that in the discussion above but here are a couple more excerpts of articles from ledzeppelin.com:

San Diego May 28, 1973 "Led Zep devoted themselves and on other dates on the tour to the entire concert performance without a second act on the bill, which made for a full evening of immersion into their heavy metal rock".

Minneapolis January 18, 1975 "Led Zeppelin descended upon Minneapolis this past weekend and proved to a jam-packed crowd of more than 20,000 devotees that it is still the world's premiere heavy-metal rock and roll band" ... "During its long tenure at the top of the heavy-metal rock pile, Led Zeppelin has met and defeated the challenges of untold numbers of pretenders to its throne" Piriczki (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few more, and there are a dozen more (concert reviews from outside magazines) on the official website, Piriczki.

December 26, 1968- The concert crowd had no idea that this new heavy-metal band from Britain was added to the show. That night marked the band's American debut.

May 11, 1969- But MacDonald's counterpart at The Seattle Times, Janine Gressel, was far more impressed with Three Dog Night. Though acknowledging (in a rather stingy four-sentence blurb out of a 15 paragraph essay) that "The Led Zeppelin ... put on an instrumentally excellent performance" -- she presumably wasn't thrilled by singer Robert Plant's proto-heavy metal vocal stylings -- noting that Three Dog Night, whose "singing is the core of this excellent band," simply "stole the show."

April 27, 1977- About midway through, Zep revived something they haven’t done in concert since the early 70s – an acoustic set. The founders and main perpetrators of the heavy metal music form sat themselves down and ran through delightful versions of Battle of Evermore, Going to California and Black Country Woman, even reviving the rockabilly Bron-Y-Aur Stomp from Led Zeppelin III (with Jones on stand-up bass).

June 7, 1977- After that, most of the explosions were from the stage, where Led Zeppelin proved that it was worthy of the adoration bestowed upon it. The 8-year old band virtually invented what has become known as heavy-metal rock, an English combination of blues structures and ear-splitting volume. But the band has grown with the times. Rather than relying on its earlier style of rock-to-break-your-kneecaps-with once represented by songs like Whole Lotta Love, Led Zeppelin performed a nearly three-hour set notable for its variety, sophistication and depth.

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Zeppelin is NOT heavy metal, to be honest with you. A influence on the genre- YES. A heavy metal band- NO. I would go with the "heavy rock" label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.144.145 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice quotes from reliable sources Piriczki. This debate is just gets more-n-more childish with each "nay" post that comes along. LZs place in the overall history of heavy metal is referenced/verifiable beyond any personal opinions posted here. The 'nay' posts that keep flowing onto this talk page are coming from editors who have zero understanding of what heavy metal is. The references win. The 4 genres were in the article for years (Hard rock, heavy metal, blues-rock, folk rock) should be reinstated and the debate closed forever. Move on... nothing to see here. Wiki libs (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are almost completely correct. The only issue I have is with "folk rock". We know "heavy metal" is verifiable by reliable sources (despite our own opinions or original research), but what about "folk rock"?LedRush (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey libs. Yeah, we all know that Zeppelin are one of the originators of what became heavy metal. On the other hand, we also know that there are some editors who will keep removing "heavy metal" from the infobox, thus the edit wars. The situation is getting absurd IMHO. BTW, you just coined a new term "nay editors" or "nay posts"... Who are you referring to? Just curious. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

LedRush does make a great point. Personally I don't have a problem with folk rock being in the box, but how many references can we actually find calling Zeppelin a folk rock band. I'm sure that we can find sources stating that the group have done several folk rock songs, but can anyone find a single source calling them a folk rock group? RG (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "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

Wait! Who's calling them a "folk rock" group? Folk rock is just listed under the genres. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there are literally thousands of critics who have called Led Zeppelin heavy metal, this research does more to prove to me that "folk rock" should not be included in the genres. You have one quote that says they were great for "stadium-packing epic blues/folk rock" and one quote that says some of their music has a "folk-rock feel". That's no sources that say that are part of a genre called "folk rock". These slightly hint at it, but that's not enough for an info box out entry. Perhaps there is much better research out there. But seeing as many people were resistant to put in heavy metal despite numerous sources, these slightly-related references do nothing to convince me that there are enough critics who believe that Led Zeppelin's genre was folk-rock to make the opinion notable and verifiable.LedRush (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether enough reliable resources describe the band's genre as "folk-rock" to make that opinion notable. So far, I have seen no evidence to support the claim. We have overwhelming evidence for the term heavy metal (even though I disagree with that characterization personally), and many people resist its inclusion. I don't think we're near the tipping point for "folk rock". Of course, I could be wrong and the citations are out there. However, no one has found them yet.LedRush (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin were a heavy metal band whether you like it or not. Just look at these references: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/LedZeppelin/;kw=[news,artists,8665,36144,36167] http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde http://www.soulofrocknroll.com/content/articles/quintessential-heavy-metal-band-plays-folk-acoustic-side-led-zeppelin http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Led-Zeppelin-Biography/F739A1FFCE365C9C48256886002F3AA7 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0496389/bio http://www.answers.com/topic/led-zeppelin http://themetalden.com/index.php?p=13271 http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/led_zeppelin/artist.jhtml Do we really need to discuss about this subject matter? It is obvious that they were a heavy metal band. Many professional musicians and music critics have confirmed that Led Zeppelin was one of the first bands to be called heavy metal. It seems to be very hard for young immature persons to understand that in the 70's bands like Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Uriah Heep were considered heavy metal. --JNCooper (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC

I agree Lee Zeppelin is a heavy metal band acording with many sources through the time. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/LedZeppelin/;kw=[news,artists,8665,36144,36167] http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde http://www.soulofrocknroll.com/content/articles/quintessential-heavy-metal-band-plays-folk-acoustic-side-led-zeppelin http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Led-Zeppelin-Biography/F739A1FFCE365C9C48256886002F3AA7 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0496389/bio http://www.answers.com/topic/led-zeppelin http://themetalden.com/index.php?p=13271 http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/led_zeppelin/artist.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.22.126 (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Can a Band have several labels describing THE BAND ITSELF? Not their Music, not their material output, but the Musical ACT itself.

• If they can: What is the requirement for us being able to give it a certain label?
• As I see it they can't. The sentence "Led Zeppelin were a English ROCK BAND" shows ONE term to lable the BAND. Since we have agreed on that (else how comes it's in the article) should we really be fighting over whether they are a "Heavy Metal" Band or not.

The Debate we're having seems from all angles to take up only two issues:

• if their Material (and how much of it) is Heavy Metal

and much more dominant:

• How many sources there are describing them as a heavy metal band.

the last point is very important concerning Wikipedia Policies, but is it really Relevant? The debate here is about their MATERIAL, and yet it's trying to determine a lable for the ARTIST. There is a difference between a Heavy Metal band and a band that plays Heavy Metal (or any other genre f.t.m.) Metallica can be accepted as a HM band since there is no doubt that their material (not just partially, but GENERALLY) can be labeled as HM. With Zeppelin there is, this debate is proof enough. Therefor we can not lable Zeppelin as any genre we cannot (generally) lable their entire catalog as. CentraCross (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What we need is to find New, modern, up-to-date secondary sources, using information from New, modern, up-to-date Primary sources that in turn use New, modern, up-to-date Definitions of Heavy Metal, and which states clearly without any debate:

1. that Led Zeppelin is a Heavy Metal Band.
2. Or that they played Heavy Metal.

Since the first is a generalisation, we must also take into consideration the opposing parties. We should not give an artist one single lable that is clear subject of debate. we therefor have to find a lable that is not argued. We have already found such a lable - Rock Band. This is in the introduction and should remain there. As i preciously asked can an ARTIST have several lables? If yes, what is the condition for a certain lable? Also we must consider Sub-/super- genres and styles as if we might not be able to lable them as HM we could possible lable them as Hard Rock (a supergenre, containing more genres than, but also including, Heavy Metal.

The 2nd is not too difficult, but if we do this for ONE genre, we should do it for all - And display genres In Relation to how much of their material counts as a certain genre, this also determining the order they are displayed. Since we are not allowed to do original research, we have to find sources stating what genres different Zeppelin material qualifies as, not just ONE general Term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CentraCross (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I am sure it won't make much of a difference, I recall Robert Plant himself stating he didn't consider Led Zeppelin to be a metal band. edited by Thomas Arnold (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

English

I Changed "English" to "British" which was promptly reverted [7]. English is a disambiguation page. I don't have much more to say than I did in the edit summary though ""English" is not a place or country, it's a language. Please either put "English-speaking" or specify a country or place." It seems pretty clear-cut that we should say that they were British, or from the United Kingdom or from England if they were. And otherwise we should say where they were from. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is cool though I do think it would be better to say "from England." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Is it not also permissible to mention other examples obvious to any listener that demonstrates that Page was cheerfully and shamelessly willing to 're-cycle' other material? Two examples that spring to mind are the bass riff of Your Time Is Gonna Come, which comes straight from Traffic's Dear Mr Fantasy; and Black Mountain Side, which is almost a direct copy of Bert Jansch's Black Water Side. The latter example - with no real attempt to disguise the origin of the tune - demonstrates a touching kind of innocence about the process. However, the repeated practice of claiming copyright is downright wrong. It was a miracle that Bert Jansch didn't join the queue claiming royalties... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncameron (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Extensively discussed before. See talk page archives. Scieberking (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

In my opinion, this article has far too much WP:TRIVIA, causing the article's content to disintegrate into WP:LISTCRUFT. The heavy emphasis on more recent reunion news smacks of WP:RECENTISM as well. I had edited the article to trim down the article, but I was reverted and asked to look for consensus. So what does everybody think. (look at the edits I made for specific areas that I think can be cut down)—indopug (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As the editor asking for consensus, I agree we have to draw the line somewhere. We don't need a section stating what Robert Plant had for breakfast 21/2 months after the release of Stairway to Heaven. Now we need to build a little consensus to keep it that way. Mlpearc powwow 05:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are the specific changes I think this article needs:

• Songs in other media: Textbook WP:TRIVIA. Considering that the band are rather lenient now in allowing in licensing their music, there's no need to list every film, commercial and television show that uses a Zeppelin song. The rollcoaster bit can be moved to Cultural signifance.
• Reunion tour reports (2008–2010): Needs to be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs (ironically, these three years of inactivity are more detailed than the band's 70s peak). As that final quote from Andy Copping states, although the band will probably never reunite, concert promoters will never stop trying. Hence, all the unfounded rumours.
• Awards and accolades: Some of those awards could be removed (to spin off a new "List of Led Zep awards" article). Things like the Q Merit Awards are really not that notable, especially compared to the other awards. Most famous acts have tribute albums recorded in their honour, and the Zep are no different, so I think that (uncited) tribute albums should be cut as well (notice how the Beatles article doesn't have it). Also don't see why the politicians need to be mentioned; it's clear that Zeppelin has enormous popularity worldwide, so it's only natural that some politicians will be fans as well.
• Influence on other musicians: that is one huge paragraph, isn't it? When you start with "One of the most influential rock acts in history", you don't need to list every single strand of influence. Instead of saying "Many artists of the X genre were influenced by Zeppelin, including A, B, C and D", let's instead find a succint quote that summarises their influence on different genres (We can also remove some info that may be actually better suited for sub-articles, such as Johnny Ramone's rave of Jimmy Page's technique).
• Cultural significance: Listing the celebrities wearing Zep attire is ridiculous, and completely redundant to the Simeon Lipman quote. Same goes for the baseball-player mentions: highly trivial and unworthy of a serious encyclopedia.—indopug (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - I would also go as far, with the Influence on other musicians section. I propose that a time frame be established for any entries, Say for instance the band claiming influence needs to be formed and claiming influence with in a decade of Zeppelin's initial break up (circa 1980, Bonham's death). Any band formed in let's say the '90's can claim influence just because it's "cool" to say "My band was influence" by Zeppelin. Mlpearc powwow 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - You can put forward an initial draft of what you want with this article, so we can review and constructively collaborate. This will avoid all the confusion and potential disruption. As one of the main authors, I've recently made a couple trims as well, and heavily working on your suggestions today (should take a few hours). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Some major cleanup has been made as per your wish. Scieberking (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good Scieberking, this could be the start of a much needed clean up campaign for all rock band articles. Mlpearc powwow 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for your prompt effort. I still think there's more work to be done, but this is an excellent start. I'll take another look at the article in a few days and comment here. Thanks again,—indopug (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the "poke in the ribs". I was, at the start going "What is the person doing ?" but then I looked at your edits more closely and thought if we approach it this why maybe we can set some president. And you'll find Scieberking working on all band articles, a great editor. Mlpearc powwow 04:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mlpearc and Indopug. I think there are many other band articles that need similar reworking, for instance Queen. Scieberking (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More Trivia: Although the rights for the songs are too expensive for the TV show 'Supernatural', Led Zeppelin and their work were several times refered to. So is the name of the 2nd Season Opener 'In My Time of Dying', Episode 2.20 What Is and What Should Never Be, 4.21 is called When the Levee Breaks, 5.13 is called The Song Remains the Same, Episode 5.19 'Hammer of the Gods' refers to a song line in the Immigrant Song, the final episode of season five is called Swan Song, which refers to the label of the band. One of the heroes, Dean Winchester, is an avowed fan of Led Zeppelin and they use five times the names of members of the band as a cover name. Source http://tviv.org/Supernatural/Music Perhaps that could be added in the section 'cultural influence'? --77.1.71.108 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the point of this section was to remove trivia in the article, not to add more of it.—indopug (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

The article underwent several vandalism and I think it's time to semi-protect it. What do you think?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. You may need to ask User:CT Cooper, who has been an active admin on this article, for semi-protection. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)