Talk:Led Zeppelin

RFC about the lede

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

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

and the reverted edit is here..

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

Lede: Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

Please have a look:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 million vs. 200 (or perhaps 300) million record sales. This ain't a public forum but any rock aficionado knows that R.E.M. isn't the same league as Zeppelin. The two groups are only comparable because both are John Paul Jones influenced... You're right about the tidy appearance of article thing, though. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been asked to express my opinion about this. I have not read this part of the discussion, thus I'll just comment the current wording. "...progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music." ... the part saying "to an extent" is a total weasel wording. What exact kind of extend are you talking about? How big is that extent? Such things must be specified by sources. You can't water down statements by adding "to an extend". The only thing you need to do is to leave out the "to an extent" part, which is not encyclopedic and not explicit. = "...progenitors of heavy metal and hard rock." Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lykantrop, for your opinion. I'll wait and let other editors comment on this issue. Regards. Scieberking (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's weasel wording. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Been removed as per Lykantrop's suggestion. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First you changed the first paragraph without consensus. In fact, you broke the agreement signed that preserved its stable. Lykantrop: "It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."-- " Two. You no consensus to change the text still deleting the following sources: Heavy Metal in Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Iommi biography in allmusic with explicit reference to Led Zeppelin is one of the creators of heavy metalhttp://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke Third. "Britannica Encyclopedia? The most authentic and scholarly encyclopedia ever written??" Britannica is not specialized in music, contains a partial view that omits the HISTORY. She has the value of a allmusic which is targeted at music, and even has details like magazines Kerrang, Hit Parader, Creem, Roling Stone, Metal Hammer. Not bibliography for MUSIC. It can be excellent just any subject, but when she trangride the HISTORY it loses its value. "The hard rock was in its developmental stages until Led Zeppelin 1 was released, which is often cited as the true beginning of hard rock." The Hard Rock has existed without the Led Zeppelin I with Hendrix, Jeff Beck, The Who and he existed with or without Led Zeppelin. At the time of Led Zeppelin 1 and there were already looking cites Led Zeppelin 1 as true beginning of the hard rock is making value judgments and again ignoring the story. Led Zeppelin 1 is cited as the beginning of heavy metal and the difference is striking. "Thirdly, who's "removing" other ancestors of hard rock, or even heavy metal? The sentence clearly says "one of the progenitors of", not "the one and only progenitor of". Let me again clear this with a couple of sources." Answered by fellow up on that page: ""According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" Therefore if he did not create the hard rock it is not "one of the progenitors" of it and keep it in wikipedia called original research. Or better change history. Stop cutting and pasting sentences and let people know the TRUTH. Paste the complete sentences. I'll bold the facts show that Led Zeppelin is one of the parents of hard rock. showing that he exist without Led Zeppelin. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 "Hard rock is a term that's frequently applied to any sort of loud, aggressive guitar rock, but for these purposes, the definition is more specific. To be sure, hard rock is loud, aggressive guitar rock, but it isn't as heavy as heavy metal, and it's only very rarely influenced by punk (though it helped inspire punk). Hard rock generally prizes big, stadium-ready guitar riffs, anthemic choruses, and stomping, swaggering backbeats; its goals are usually (though not universally) commercial, and it's nearly always saturated with machismo. With some bands, it can be difficult to tell where the dividing line between hard rock and heavy metal falls, but the basic distinction is that ever since Black Sabbath, metal tends to be darker and more menacing, while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar. Arena rock also became a dominant force, stripping out nearly all blues influence and concentrating solely on big, bombastic hooks. During the '80s, hard rock was dominated by glossy pop-metal, although Guns N' Roses, the Black Crowes, and several others did present a grittier, more traditionalist alternative. Old-fashioned hard rock became a scarce commodity in the post-alternative rock era; after grunge, many guitar bands not only adopted a self-consciously serious attitude, but also resisted the urge to write fist-pumping, arena-ready choruses. Still, the '90s did produce a few exceptions, such as Oasis, Urge Overkill, and the serious but anthemic Pearl Jam." Let's be very clear he says that he comes before the led Zeppelin with Cream, Hendrix and Jeff Beck. He says that it is influenced by punk, he says he came up with The Who, Stones and the respect of Led Zeppelin he merely speaks of an aspect of the band and not the band ("the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin"). If Allmusic say: "Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s" then it already exists, LED ZEPPELIN IS NOT ONE OF THE PROGENITORS. The logic is confirmed in the preceding sentence: "pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group". You are forcing your point of view distorts the logical interpretation of the text. In addition to suppressing the more than 5 sources that cite Led Zeppelin as heavy metal and not hard rock. "AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Self-explanatory Source worthless. You're showing sources of no relevance. Are worth anything written on the Internet now? http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm in discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please You wrote:"The First Source is NOT highly reliable and written by a semi-professional, Chad Bowar, who may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. About.com guides are notoriously controversial and they hire amateurs, more clearly "freelancers who work online and set their own schedules, giving them the flexibility to work when it suits them". But You fall in contradiction using the same About.com. You use "A Brief History of Rock Music" Omit this title that says much about the content of the text http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm and omits "Although there are debates among experts, most consider groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple to be the first heavy metal bands." Let's compare the curricula, as Chad Bowar with over 20 years of experience aprece not worth anything? Your "A Brief History of Rock Music" Http://rock.about.com/bio/Tim-Grierson-46190.htm Against http://heavymetal.about.com/bio/Chad-Bowar-17543.htm? Ask people read and compare the curriculum of both and draw your own conclusions. It is clear that Tim omits the story to summarize the history of rock and in the case of hard rock in one single band: Led Zeppelin. This is the font that you bring? When it suits you speak evil of about.com. And yet you use a summary of the rock for defending your point of view? "A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by" "One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock." Who is more respectable this book or the allmusic? Who is more respectable this book or the biographies of Led Zeppelin? The biographies of Led Zeppelin are more specialized or not? The biographies of the LZ they call heavy metal right? This book can be considered more relevant than than the blockbusters films Some Kind of Monster, Metal a Headbanguer's Journey? This book has the level of research and know-how of a Kerrang, Hit Parader, Metal Hammer? Why their sources without regard must be taken into consideration given your POV, and mine that are more than 30 years there are not taken? Why Wikipedia is much more consistent and referenced in the article heavy metal? Because the article hard rock loads: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2009)" Why you omit facts, breaks the story and does not respect other opinions. Let's see: 98.113.216.32 Says: “The citations refer to heavy metal, not hard rock, which is appropriate since hard rock predates Led Zeppelin by quite a bit, thanks to the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Hendrix and many others.” http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339483085

98.113.216.32 Says:”I don't care what Susan Fast says. She's objectively wrong and her cite is the only one that says something so appallingly ignorant.” http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339633935 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339989416&oldid=339980499 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339994623&oldid=339992496 Showing you erasing allmusic source who points to heavy metal http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340256563&oldid=340001920 Again erase two allmusic's heavy metal sources http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340316313&oldid=340296474 POV again against History and Allmusic http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340452794 8 sources realible erased by you http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340456747 ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, Allmusic says more than 5 times heavy metal and you cross all quotes. How many editors you are in edit war by imposing their point of view? Who do you think you fool omitting the History? The history show manyprogenitors not Led Zeppelin. The wikipedia will use from untrusted sources to promote their personal interests? "You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer" And to finalize your ad hominem. Can you read? read what I wrote I'll introduce sources of ALLMUSIC, I regarded reputable sources, not use of summaries of rock or personal blogs pra defend my point of view. Read if you can Them Crooked Vultures compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Them_Crooked_Vultures&diff=prev&oldid=327024384 with Them Crooked Vultures in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kbfpxz9gldhe Styles Pop/Rock Hard Rock Alternative Pop/ Rock Alternative/ Indie Rock Stoner Metal Heavy Metal Blue Cheer http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Blue_Cheer&diff=prev&oldid=324707410 compare with Blue heer in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifqxqw5ldde http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2690 This is POV or not? "I actually don't mind the current version, personally. Paulotanner's right, though, that hard rock did essentially exist before Zeppelin." (Albert Mond (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) "I think the lead paragraph has several problems and needs to be rewritten. As I mentioned above in Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions, it is difficult to justify Led Zeppelin being a progenitor of hard rock when that music style was already in existence and recognized as such when Led Zeppelin's first album was released. Despite the source, I just can't get past the chronology. Also regarding the Britannica article, it contains contributions from two other editors and the "Editors of Enclopedia Britannica" (which are site visitors) so it can't be ascertained whether that particular passage was written by the primary author. Susan Fast wrote a book on Led Zeppelin, In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music, which doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock although it does make a reference to Led Zeppelin as the progenitors of heavy metal. The rest of the paragraph has problems as well. The part about "indiviualistic style" is vague and uninformative. Not releasing singles in the UK is noteworthy but I don't think it is of such importance that it belongs in the lead. Also, the mention of "album-oriented rock" might be confusing to some readers in the US where this commonly refers to a radio format popular in the late 1970s. I think the contributor meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format." Piriczki (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "Greetings. I just wanted to bring up a couple of arguments to Scieberking. First thing is, that the band's opinion about their genre is not relevant. The band's opinion is not a third party reliable source. Many bands do not agree with their categorization as heavy metal, including AC/DC, Motörhead among others. The other thing is: how do we know that the "allegation" (as you call it) that they are a heavy metal band is disputable? Your attitude is that the heavy metal genre "beyond any doubt, is disputable". I personally do not know whether it is disputable or not. To find out the answer, whether the heavy metal genre is disputable or not, we need to look up to the sources: To illustrate one point, I will pick one of the above presented reliable third party sources: Allmusic Led Zeppelin biography. This source states: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." This is not only an explicit statement that they are a heavy metal band. This statement also includes the word "definitive", which is crucial to illustrate this point. This word indicates that the author is conscious of other bands that can be heavy metal (or are disputably heavy metal), but that this one is the "definitive" one: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." Except for this source, many others can be found stating defacto simply "Led Zeppelin are heavy metal": "one of the first heavy metal bands" (BBC), "the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer" (Rolling Stone) To illustrate the other point, we need reliable third party sources that state something in the manner of "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all". But don't forget that statements such as "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin"[1] do not support this point. That statement says that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin was the first metal band, or not the first one. But it does not say that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin play heavy metal at all. A source that states that Led Zeppelin is hard rock and blues rock also does not support this point, as well as multiple such sources don't" (WP:SYNTHESIS) "So to illustrate your point, the only thing you need to do, Scieberking, is to present third party sources, reliable at least as Allmusic, BBC or Rolling Stone, that state explicitly "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all".-"- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "don't understand how fan's opinion is relevant. Try to elaborate on some statements written by proffesional music journalists. A fan's statement such as "Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal" does not seem to be reliable enough for an encyclopedia. You should try to come up with a counterweight to Allmusic, BBC, Rolling Stone "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band", not some random fan's opinion. If you fail to do so, there's nothing much more I can discuss.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) "What you brought up, Scieberking, is one musician's opinion and, again, the band's attitude. That is not really satisfactory for me. One more thing that I wanted to say is: Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources. I think I've said pretty much everything. Most likely, I won't be online for the next couple of days so have a good luck with the discussion. Cheers.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) "It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "It is unspeakable ignorance to suggest that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock. Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 and didn't release an album until 1969. Hard rock was already thriving thanks to the likes of the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience and many others from the Amboy Dukes to Steppenwolf to Blue Cheer to Iron Butterfly and more." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) "The Jimi Hendrix Experience are a hard rock band. They released all three of their albums before Led Zeppelin released anything. The Who are a hard rock band. Their live sound is as hard rock as hard rock gets, long before Led Zeppelin existed. Cream are a hard rock band. They formed, released their music, and broke up before Led Zeppelin released anything. Any reasonably informed rock aficionado knows this." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I do not invent what I enter in wikipedia, I use the most reputable sources. Unlike you that distorts facts and did not follow any contrary opinion. Tsc, tsc, you are in fight againt all... and ERASE reputable sources. Paulotanner (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR. Most users won't read all that and those that try may be left with their head spinning. Please stick to the key points and use paragraphs a little more, rather than clogging up this talk page with huge walls of text. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Scieberking corrode the article

2 sources to hard rock one to heavy metal?????? There many heavy metal sources and few hard rock. Tsc, tsc... Scieberking changes the stable version of 1 paragraphy and rape the History with your personal point of view. Paulotanner (talk) 01:37, 10 April 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)

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)

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)

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)