Talk:Led Zeppelin III/Archive 1

Archive 1

Heavy Metal

Heavy Metal should be removed from genre, as Led Zeppelin has always denied that label. Plus, the album is mainly acoustic filled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.51.113 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built on personal opinion(especially incorrect ones) Wikipedia is built on verifiable, referenced content. And Led Zeppelins association with the heavy metal genre is well referenced and verifiable. 156.34.230.90 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Album sleeve design

Several months ago I added text which explains the history of the album sleeve design. This information was referenced to reliable, reputable sources (a music magazine interview with a member of Led Zeppelin, who was quoted directly, and a Led Zeppelin reference book). The text has recently been removed and replaced with contrary information which is lacking in any citations.

The history page gives the reasoning of the person who conducted this edit:

This edit comes from the studio of the artist who produced the Led Zeppelin cover art and not from a web site. The information given is 100% correct.

I have reverted the text to its earlier incarnation. If the information in the first, substantiated text is incorrect, the replacement text requires citations from reliable sources. We can't just take anyone's word that the information given is 100% correct. Edelmand (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A user named Freespirit13 continues to delete verified information about the album cover, replacing it with unsubstantiated information on the grounds that he or she has "first hand information of the events". This is a clear breach of Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The user refers to the December issue of Classic Rock magazine, but I have this publication at hand and it does NOT substantiate what the user is claiming. Jimmy Page is interviewed in the magazine (at pages 36-37) and he mentions nothing whatsoever of the album cover. The only information in the magazine comes from a feature article on Zacron (pages 57-58), who claims that Page was pleased with the album cover. But this is NOT fist hand information from Page himself.

Furthermore, the user continues to delete the following quote without a valid reason:

"I thought it looked very teeny-bopperish. But we were on top of a deadline, so of course there was no way to make any radical changes to it. There were some silly bits - little chunks of corn and nonsense like that."

This information is direct, first hand information from Page from an interview he gave to Guitar World magazine in January 1998. This quote is duly cited. If the user wishes delete it he or she must provide a valid rationale. Edelmand (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much debate over nothing

All Led Zeppelin albums have detailed genre fields in place of the more general rock description. That is how they have always been. No reason to change it now unless we go ahead and make every album that way and not just this one. Fair Deal (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Adopting an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy will get this encyclopedia nowhere. I believe we should reach a formal consensus regarding Led Zeppelin's album genres instead of the suggestions you and Wiki libs have provided. NSR77 ^T 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a similar edit to this article 2 days ago with a very clear edit summary supporting the more detailed field in place of having just rock in the genre space. I feel the more accurate description conveys the best message. In my edit I moved folk rock ahead of heavy metal and blues-rock as is a very prominent part of the album's overall style. My edit and edit summary went ignored with the previous edit so I have repeated my thoughts here. Comparing to other acts that have great diversity in their musical styles including multiple musical styles on a single release, I see no apparent push to generalise any of them so it does not make sense to do that here. The best option would be to simply remove the genre field from all music articles and use the main text of the article to describe the style of the artist, album or song. Wether B (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it too much. It was a bad faith edit anyways. It it were a serious attempt to improve the Wik then every album from every artist listed here would just say rock. Five years ago I actually suggested (loudly and repeatedly that every rock artist, album and song should just say 'rock' and not have any sub-genres listed at all... but... it has become what it has become. There was 1 glorious week last fall when all the genre fields were gone and Wikipedia was stable and good. Led Zeppelin only has 11 albums and the genre fields for each of them are actually quite accurate and balanced. The listed items for this album describe the styles on the album quite well. Blues-rock is probably the most "loose" of any of the fields since it doesn't describe anything beyond "Since I've Been Loving You" There is a very strong folk element which is described. And it has the hard rock/heavy metal bits as well. All their albums can stay just as is for now with special care taken to make sure no one adds progressive rock to any of them a major genre faux-pas that occurs every so often on LZ albums... now THAT is just plain wrong :) . The Real Libs-speak politely 13:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki libs, that is very bad faith from you. There is absolutely no reason that if this article should have "Rock" in the genre, every rock album on Wikipedia should too. Nevermind is a rock album, but the "grunge"-subgenre describes it fine. For Zep albums, since they pursue a number of styles on every album, listing them all out in the infobox makes it cluttered and contrary to the purposes of an infobox (which is to provide quick, succinct info). Just the overarching rock genre would suffice.

Further, I'm don't know whether actually read what reliable sources have to say about Led Zeppelin III, but this is the group's definitive quiet/acoustic album, so heavy metal/hard rock totally doesn't belong. indopug (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't bad faith on me. You could read the different user talk pages and predict the ass-lick edit coming before it even took place. + hard rock/hm are very well represented on the album and worth listing. It makes no sense to target one album and blow away the consistency it has with the other albums. Unless it is something the LZ proj comes to some sort of consensus to do it is rude to try and do so without their approval. I am all for putting rock in any infobox and deleting everything else. But only if it a consensus agreement by the music proj to do that to every single album. It is something that is 5 years overdue. But the consensus by history, by edit summary and by majority user comment is that the LZ albums are described for 'all that they are' The Real Libs-speak politely 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The genre field is there so we can illustrate accurate information. Not a "general" consensus as to what the band's (Led Zeppelin's) overarching genres are. If we were to do this with David Bowie records we'd have a pretty serious problem. I understand Bowie and Zeppelin are two completely different musical acts but the philosophy should be the same—each album article should assert a specific and respective genre that is appropriate. And, please, do not make assumptions that edits were made in bad faith because such accusations can be considered a personal attack against other users. NSR77 ^T 18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So all the RHCP albums should just say rock to cover off the funk/punk/metal/pop/alt that each album has. Queen only has rock as a band genre description. But each of their albums have numerous genres to describe the individual albums differing styles. They don't all say rock. There really is no difference. Either they are individual/detailed/accurate for each album OR every single album says rock. This album has some metal, some blues and some folk... so that's what it says in the box. The lead-in says they're a "rock" band. All their lead-ins do. But their album boxes convey the detail that is individual to each album. Like a thousand other multi-genre artists do. Singling out 1 or 2 albums from a discogrpahy and making them inconsistent... just doesn't make any sense? The Real Libs-speak politely 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to having multiple genres in an infobox—that's not what I'm saying. While the album exhibits elements of hard rock, if that specific style is not asserted significantly then it should not be listed in the infobox. It's proper place is the "Music" section that discusses the content of the record. Here songs are analyzed and one can measure the album's heaviness to previous or ensuing Led Zeppelin albums. NSR77 ^T 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin III

Is this album called III or Led Zeppelin III?!

I've always been wondering on what grounds the bands name is taken in the albums name? In the III disambiguation page there are 4 albums where the bands name is also there, 11 albums where the title is only III. 85.217.15.47 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

fanboys

the whole 2nd paragraph is fanboy jabber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.142.1 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Genre

I am changing the genres to: Folk rock, heavy metal, hard rock, blues rock

Firstly the material on the album is mostly folk rock: 'Friends' 'Gallows Pole' 'Tangerine' 'That's the Way' 'Bron-Y-Aur Stomp'

Second of all heavy metal: 'Immigrant Song' 'Celebration Day' 'Out on the Tiles'

Thirdly we have hard rock: 'Immigrant Song' 'Celebration Day'

And finally we have blues rock: 'Since I've Been Loving You' 'Gallows Pole' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.85.191 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre issue with all Led Zeppelin albums...

• Comment - OK so as per the previous album, I think we need some consensus on the issue of Genre's. Led Zeppelin came from the Blues scene out of London in the mid-late 60s, and I've noticed a distinct lake of this in the albums genres. Debate is required I think, unlike the unsigned comment previously edited which was reversed of course, as its without debate and consensus or source material. Nuro msg me 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• PS - Roy Harper was a Blues man....Nuro msg me 00:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A genre assessed to a band does not mean all their albums fall under the same assessment, a punk band can easily release a heavy metal album. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong image !

This is NOT the original LP cover ! 81.230.36.59 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Composition Section

I have some problems with the Composition Section, a lot of which seems to have no references. While a lot of the information is correct - strictly speaking - it is presented in a way that could easily be misinterpreted. I guess my suggestion is that it needs some re-wording to say the same things in a less ambiguous way, but I'm not going to start that if it's going to be reverted so I thought I would see what people think first:

1. "As noted above, Led Zeppelin III marked a change in focus for the band from late 1960s hard rock to a folk rock and acoustic sound." - While that is true, and will make sense to people who know Led Zeppelin, people who don't could easily infer that Led Zeppelin's focus from this point on was folk rock and acoustic sound, which is patently false.

2. "These styles had been present to a lesser degree in the band's first two releases, but here they received the main emphasis, and would remain prominent to various degrees in the group's later albums." - Well, yes, that is strictly true. However when you consider that Led Zeppelin II contained Ramble On - which is a folk song - and there were other acoustic songs on both I and II, it doesn't really portray the actual reality when you consider that neither Presence or In Through The Out Door contained any folk or acoustic songs. Once again, a person who knows Led Zeppelin will understand what is meant, but someone who doesn't could easily get the wrong impression. While "...remain prominent to various degrees in the group's later albums..." is true, because "prominent to various degrees" can certainly mean "not at all", I don't think that's what a person with no knowledge would infer?

3. "This development endeared the band to many progressive rock fans who would never have listened to Led Zeppelin's established blues and rock repertoire." - I'm sure I don't really need to point out what is wrong with this claim? Though maybe I do! How on earth could anyone possible know what endeared "many progressive rock fans" to Led Zeppelin, and the claim would be highly dubious even if it had a source; which it doesn't. Why do we suddenly care that fans of some specific genre were endeared? I'm sure there were some folk enthusiasts who were endeared to the band by the album too, but they aren't mentioned. Were any fans of baroque classical music endeared to the album? Who cares and how is it relevant? If it is, then surely a more accurate claim would be that the band expanded their audience by branching into new territory, and that expanded audience probably comprised fans of the genres they branched into? FillsHerTease (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)