Talk:Led Zeppelin IV/Archive 2

Rock and roll / blues
I disagree that the album is listed as a "rock and roll" album. The Allmusic source says the album encompasses "heavy metal, folk, pure rock & roll, and blues", but that does not mean it is a rock and roll album, it just means that there is some trace of the genre somewhere on the album. If you've listened to rock and roll before (and can distinguish the genre from the exclamatory phrase "rock 'n roll" that evolved from it), there is one song out of the eight that is rock and roll - and that is appropriately enough, "Rock and Roll". Nothing else on this album resembles music by Elvis, Little Richard, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. I don't think one song out of eight makes it a rock and roll album.

I also don't think the "blues" genre is accurate, either. The genre that has been agreed upon for the band article infobox is "blues rock", quite reasonably since Led Zeppelin isn't a true blues band - they have always played blues-inflected music (or covers of blues songs) in rock arrangements. Blues musicians include Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, B. B. King, etc. Led Zeppelin have largely been accused of "borrowing" or "stealing" from the blues (not something I necessarily agree with), a red flag that the group does not truly fall under that genre. We've already established "blues rock" for the band and a number of individual songs on the album - why aren't we applying it to the album? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How does your own research on the band change the fact that you still need to cite a source for "blues rock" in the infobox for the album? Even if you're unwilling to consider anything from me, how do you still overlook what said in his edit summary? Dan56 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to look at what Sabred's edit was? He was reverting someone's change to the opening sentence of the lead, regarding the album title. Completely irrelevant. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's plenty relevant since you partook in the above genre discussion(s)--you should know better at this point. Get a consensus for your change when it's been discussed ad nauseam and when you refuse to cite a source. Dan56 (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we've been going about this wrong. Right now, the album's genres are sourced from a single Allmusic review. Not all critics will describe music exactly the same, so using a single critic review as a reference is subject to their biases, writing style, etc. Rather than argue and argue about this reference and that reference and the validity of one versus another, I think it would behoove us to compile multiple sources to back up each the genres. See below:
 * Hard rock -
 * Heavy metal -
 * Blues rock -
 * "IV-era blues rock" isn't explicit ("...if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source...") and requires your own interpretation--I can just as well argue that it means "blues rock" from around the time IV was released, which isn't calling IV "blues rock. Your second source says, "While their first four albums were certainly adventurous, they remained mostly rooted in blues rock." The first problem is that it says "rooted in", not "is blues rock", second problem is that it's not "the most reliable source on the topic" as it doesn't even address this album specifically nor is a cbslocal.com blogger a notable individual holding that interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE). This just looks an attempt by you to find any source that will remotely support your opinion, and that isn't the right way to research or edit. Dan56 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Folk -  Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 23:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion shows that's not true--that the genres are all attributed to one source. "Hard rock" is attributed to three sources in Release and reception (AllMusic, BBC Music, Rock Hall) and one source in Awards and recognition (Klostermann). "(Heavy) metal" is attributed to attributed to four sources in "Release and reception" (Christgau, AllMusic, Joe Gross, Chuck Eddy) and one source in "Awards and recognitions" (Klostermann). So all this reminds of is that the "heavy metal" sources outnumber the "hard rock" sources, again. An argument against "rock and roll" and "blues" because there's only one source supporting them currently is more persuasive than an argument for "blues rock" when you've relied on original research and sources that don't even explicitly say what you're using them for. Dan56 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If any of you are interested, I am trying to reach a consensus on simplifying Led Zeppelin's genre to "Rock" to avoid these pointless genre wars that have been occurring on this article, as well as many others dealing with them. You can weigh in here. Twyfan714 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

there is controversy over whether the intro to STH was influenced by a Song called Taurus recorded by Spirit with who the band had toured previously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.92.30 (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin IV → Untitled Led Zeppelin album – If I'm not mistaken, Atlantic Records officially has it listed as "Untitled", plus this mirrors other albums such as Untitled Nas album and Untitled Korn album. Johnny338 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and for what it's worth, there was somewhere along the line at least one vinyl label that actually has on it, the printed words "LED ZEPPELIN IV". I mention this in light of the claim by a largely inactive editor that his copy from the year it was released has "Led Zeppelin IV" on the vinyl label. See section 'Questions about title' at top of page. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  21:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, to riff off of what brought up above, the title "Led Zeppelin IV" was common enough for labels to either reissue it as such or that it was actually originally released in other countries with that title (Japan, Taiwan). Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Led Zeppelin IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141220191325/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robertplant/articles/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/robertplant/articles/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150417001818/http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2232 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2232
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org:80/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame#l
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122041304/http://rockhall.com:80/pressroom/definitive-200 to http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108013622/http://www.charts-surfer.de:80/musiksearch.php to http://www.charts-surfer.de/musiksearch.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proving links to officially sanctioned releases on Youtube
I am providing Youtube links to officially-sanctioned uploads to Youtube provided by the record company Warner Music Group. As these are officially provided to Youtube, there is no copyright issue so I think it is a good idea to link to the songs so people can listen to them. Since it is official and therefore legal, why not do the service of linking to the songs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzykill2013 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because something is legal does not mean we have to do it. We do not, for example, include all non-copyright pictures of a topic. The external links now looks like a linkfarm.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with, these links (and the rest you have posted) are not needed, this is a Encyclopedia not a directory.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)