Talk:Led Zeppelin IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Led Zeppelin WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Led Zeppelin. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to Led Zeppelin-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Tower block on back cover

The picture of the tower block linked to on this entry is NOT the same tower block as that featured on the album cover. Firstly it's a completely different colour scheme, being constructed in a different manner. Secondly, and more importantly, the linked photo has 16 storeys from ground level. The Tower block on the album cover has 16 storeys - not counting the extra 3 or 4 that are behind the nearest house.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.177.37 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a bit of a debate as to whether Prince of Wales Court is still standing or not. Well, coming from someone who lives about 3 miles from the location I can assure you that in July 1999 I was there to watch the demolition of Prince of Wales Court along with Millfield Court while months earlier Butterfield Court had been refurbished and still stands today!

This picture shows Prince of Wales Court in the middle with Butterfield Court on the right having a makeover: [1]

And this proves that Prince of Wales Court no longer exists - and now has a new housing estate built on it! [2]

--Geach 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Set Album to Class B & Top Importance Megamanic 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is incorrect to call it The Runes Album because only two of the symbols (John Paul Jones and John Bonham) are runes. The other two are sigils.

Similarly it would be incorrect to call it "ZOSO" because "ZOSO" isn't actually a word. It is in fact a sigil based on Page's astrological star sign Capricorn, making it unpronouncable.

The differences are explained by both Jimmy Page and to a lesser extent by Robert Plant in Ritchie Yorke's biography of the band (specifically Chapter 6) (ISBN 0-86369-744-5).

"Only the middle two are runes (John Paul Jones and John Bonham). What happened was that we all chose a symbol and the four together became the title of the album" -- Jimmy Page pp. 144.

I have never heard this album referred to as Four Symbols. I have quite frequently heard it referred to as Led Zeppelin IV. Koyaanis Qatsi 14:16, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've heard it called Four Symbols, but Led Zeppelin IV is definitely more common, and is therefore a better article title, I think. --Camembert
OK, the article now says "However the band members did not simply wish it to be called Led Zeppelin IV", which is fine, but did the band members want it to be called Four Symbols either? Seems to me that both titles are "wrong", but Led Zeppelin IV, as the more common, is the better title (in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). --Camembert

Led Zeppelin IV is not as common as you think. I am convinced it should be called Four Symbols. Robert Godwin recently published an in-depth analysis on the making of Four Symbols. It includes interviews with the band members, notably Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, which they in fact refer to it as Four Symbols. The band did not wish it to be called Led Zeppelin IV because they wanted to confuse the critics who panned their last album. -- Leanne

Just to add further: I used to believe it was called Led Zeppelin IV no questions asked, however Lee_M's original comments made me go further into the reference books. The interviews with the band members indicated a strong objection to Led Zeppelin IV. Certainly it would be from a practical point of view almost impossible to replicate all four symbols on the page, however Godwin's book certainly swayed my opinion on the matter. Godwin has published many books on the band. Being a Led Zeppelin fan the last thing I would want to do is to tamper with something that is dear to other fans but I am a stickler for accuracy and my research would indicate that Four Symbols is a far better title given the evidence at hand. -- Leanne

Seeing as that the band referred to it as "Four Symbols", I think it would be safer to create an article as "Four Symbols (Led Zeppelin album)" or "Four Symbols (album)" and to redirect all previous links for "Led Zeppelin IV," an unofficial title that the band seemingly rejects, to this new article. I would retain the note at the top of this article about the correct title being . My belief is that the band did not want a formal title, but they informally called it "Four Symbols" to denote the album by the presence of these symbols on the cover. I second the previous opinion, but I am admittedly not a fan of the band, though I have heard and enjoy some of their songs. Hopefully, this is an unbiased support of a change of title. 204.52.215.102 00:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt about relative commonness (a Google search for "Led Zeppelin IV" returns 14,500 hits, while one for '"Led Zeppelin" "Four Symbols"' returns only 773), but OK, if Page and Plant themselves refer to it as Four Symbols, I suppose it's OK (so long as there's a redirect from Led Zeppelin IV, as Jgm says below). Certainly not something worth arguing too much about :) --Camembert

plant once reffered to it as "The Fourth Album. and ive also heard it called "Zofo" alot, not "Zoso". Dizzydark 21:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


As long as Led Zeppelin IV redirects to this article I think it is OK. There may be some UK/US differences in what the album was typically called. As to "runes" and "zoso" they are indeed often used by fans to describe the album, correct or not, and I have added them to the article. (By the way the Billboard chart position shown for the album is from 1986 and doesn't mean much in the context of the article -- does anyone know the contemporaneous chart position?) Jgm 15:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's actually one of the few Led Zeppelin albums that did not reach #1 position despite it being the band's best seller. It peaked at #2 on the Billboard charts three weeks after release. I've taken the liberty to correct. -- Leanne

It's a load of crap about the middle symbols being runes. They aren't runes at all. Wikipedia itself verifies this --- Revolver66 11/01/07

But shoulden't zoso redirect to jimmy page, as that is what it represents. please offer you're opionion--Avianmosquito (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin III - critical mauling

The article states that LZ III was mauled by the critics. This isn't something I was aware of, as the album is generally very well viewed and it is not as though many LZ albums came in for favourable press opinion (some mutual loathing going on there). Does anyone else think that that sentence about critical mauling is a bit sweeping? --High(Hopes) 01:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming dispute

I think I settled it now using by adding the correct title ().— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

(Wayne and Garth mode on): Excellent! Jgm 13:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought that was Bill and Ted mode. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

" The title of this article is incorrect because of technical limitations. The correct title is . The fourth album released by the British blues/rock band Led Zeppelin is variously referred to as Led Zeppelin IV, Four Symbols, Runes, Sticks, Zoso (after the approximate shape of the first of the four symbols used as a title), or even Untitled. Indeed, it has no official title. "

Surely saying that it has no official title after saying that the image is the correct title is somewhat misleading?

Misleading? Maybe...confusing. I'd go with the article body on this one; it has no *official* title, and the note at the top should be changed to reflect this. Actually, does anyone have any evidence to show that that is a title at all? I thought it was just cover art. --Theaterfreak64 05:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC) Mmm, Rock and Rolll Hall of Fame website write-up on Zeppelin refers to it as "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album (a.k.a. Led Zeppelin IV, "The Runes Album" and Zoso)". --Theaterfreak64 09:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC) Whoops, 'scuze me. The timeline says, "Led Zeppelin's fourth album, which features four runes (symbols) as its title..." Perhaps we should just accept that we shall never know, unless one of us happens to write or run into one of the existing band members. Official website says Untitled in the discography, although in the menu for said discography, it says Led Zeppelin IV. Okay, I'll stop for now. --Theaterfreak64 09:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • There was nothing wrong with Four Symbols before User:PetSounds changed it. The album is not called Led Zeppelin IV. It does has however four symbols as its "title". I note PetSounds is no longer on Wikipedia due to their "bulldozer" editing on a number of pages. This would appear to be one of them. JamesBurns 07:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
People variously refer to this more commonly as Led Zeppelin IV (based on the assumption that it follows the Roman numbering precedent of the previous albums) or less commonly as "the one (the Led Zeppelin album) with the four weird symbols on it," but clearly, neither is the correct title. The real debate here is whether the band intended for it to be titled or left untitled. So we follow one of the following paths:
  1. Prove it has no official title and move the page to Untitled (Led Zeppelin album). (I feel that stating "no proper title" on this page implies the presence of an improper title, which in turn implies that the title is, in fact, .)
  2. Prove that the title is and move the page to Zoso which is the common textual representation of the first symbol, replace all references to this album with (Image:Zoso.svg), the description page of which is set up to redirect to this article.
  3. Reach no consensus at all and move the page to title Led Zeppelin's fourth album which neither implies that it is untitled or titled .
Any of these would involve patching a bunch of redirects.
However I don't think "Four Symbols" is a suitable title. It could just as easily refer to the practice of substituting something like "%#@&" to in a children's comic strip for virtually any inappropriate word in the English language. So perhaps Four Symbols should redirect to Censorship rather than Led Zeppelin IV. Or do we need a disambiguation page?
— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

To use phrases like "widely recognized" as one of the greatest blah blah blah is to imply that anyone with a contrary view is simply retarded. This is certainly not npov. "Recognized" refers to something that exists as a fact, not an opinion, and only requires "right seeing" to be apparent. I'm changing it to "widely regarded", which is an improvement in neutrality, but a bit weaselish.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs) 00:19, August 23, 2005.

instead of using an "incorrect" article title, why not simply call the article "Led Zeppelin's Fourth Album" No one needs to assume the name of the article is the same as the album.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs) 00:22, August 23, 2005.

Dear User:24.90.94.112, I agree that the article title Led Zeppelin's fourth album as stated above would be acceptable as a last resort. Assuming steps 1 and 2 (my comment above), both fail, this title would be the best remaining option. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Led Zeppelin IV is the most common name, and that's what we should use. The band members may not like it so much, but then if they cared what people called it, they should have given it a usable title; in any case, the band's wishes are not so important here -- this album is normally called Led Zeppelin IV, which is an apt, descriptive and neutral title. Tuf-Kat 17:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed "presumed to be" because the article currently asserts that is the official title. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden image

Trivia for today: the interior artwork of the original vinyl album is one-half of a subliminal image. Back in the day, I'd hold the album up to a mirror to show people the complete thing. If you have the album, take a look. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. If you hold the inner sleeve to a mirror there appears the image of a dog or wolf. At least it does to me. Unfortunately I can find no source to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugalowbill (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Front Image

I've read in a place or two that the image on the front of the album is of Aleister Crowley. I know Page likes his writings and such, but does anybody know of this being Crowley on the front either? If it is, we can add it to additional notes. willsy May 2, 2006 19:58PM


  • According to Dave Lewis's "The Complete Guide To The Music Of Led Zeppelin", the print of the old man was found in a junk shop in Reading by Robert Plant. Halmyre 12:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Consider this though, the image does bear a resemblence to The Rider Waite Tarot Card for the Ten of Wands.

[edit] Unicode

Are there perhaps unicode code points for the characters that make up the name of this album? I suppose if there are you could find them. But that's quite a search if you don't know where to look for them, or don't have the glyph for it on your computer.

[edit] Name

I know this is reopening an old, old argument, but I really can't accept that is the official title of this album. I've heard it referred to as Four Symbols or Zoso, but to suggest that the symbols themselves are the title seems absurd to me. I thought I'd check some references, and here's what I've found:

  • [3] official site: either untitled or Led Zeppelin IV
  • [4] All Music Guide: listed under Led Zeppelin IV but notes say it is untitled
  • Hammer of the Gods (unauthorized biography by Stephen Davis, ISBN - 0 330 43859 X): says it is untitled (and gives some explanation why)
  • [5] Electric Magic says it is untitled
  • [6] Achilles' Last Stand says untitled

In the face of these references, I feel quite strongly that, ugly though it may seem, the article should be moved to something like Led Zeppelin's fourth album.

Comments please, but please provide verifiable references. --Auximines 17:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think just Led Zeppelin IV should do. The opening sentence of the article could mention that the album is untitled, and then give the names that are most used to refer to it. --Bluerain talk 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And why not something like "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"? --200.118.220.29 00:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree with this. The official website lists this under 'Led Zeppelin IV' in their list of albums, when when IV is clicked, the album is referred to as 'Untitled.' 80.2.179.52 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that Led Zeppelin IV is fine. If there must be a substitute, I think Untitled (Led Zeppelin album) is a good candidate. "Led Zeppelin's fourth album" is too informal to be an article title. --334 04:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Well, Led Zeppelin IV! That's it really. I'll tell you why the album had no title - because we were so fed up with the reactions to the third album, that people couldn't understand why that record wasn't a direct continuation of the second album. And then people said we were a hype and all, which was the furthest thing from what we were. So we just said, `let's put out an album with no title at all!' That way, either people like it or they don't... but we still got bad reviews!" - Jimmy Page, Guitar World, 1/91.
Various other references from Page about the lack of an official title can be found in numerous interviews. Atlantic provided the symbols to Billboard and other publications to use in place of any sort of title.
I think the article should carry the title "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album" or something similar, especially since "Led Zeppelin IV," "ZoSo," or some other variation still sends you to the page. Desjardfan 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it: "The four symbols on the cover of Led Zeppelin IV, representing Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, John Bonham, and Robert Plant (from left to right) respectively."
No where do these four symbols appear on the cover. They're on the sleeve and record label inside the package. There is no text or symbol of any kind on the album cover. (Except the billboard on the building on the back cover, which is not readable.) Desjardfan 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello editors. I am a visitor to this page and wouldn't try making any major edits. However, titling this article "Led Zeppelin IV" made me think that was the name of the album. I have noticed that editors have decided that calling the first album "Led Zeppelin I" is wrong, and conversely you wouldn't call Houses of the Holy "Led Zeppelin V" (You could, however, correctly call it "Led Zeppelin's Fifth album" and still be right) I suggest you rename this article "Led Zeppelin's forth album" - That is correct regardless of the title or lack of one and keeps with Jimmy Page's quote from Guitar World about not wanting the album to carry a title. Scottdoc (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

I am removing heavy metal from the genre list. 74.100.0.150 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollins quote

I added a quote from Henry Rollins' live show, which (I thought) rather well summed up LedZep's reputation as a byword for the expression of sexual prowess. It got taken down twice (one person even called it vandalism!). Is the problem verifiability (I don't think there's an online transcription), too-graphic imagery or isn't Rollins as notable as 'Fast Times at Ridgemount High'? Any suggestions appreciated. Patrick Neylan (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I agree with its removal. Verifiability is one thing, but the other is that it simply isn't relevant. Rollins' comments really don't contribute anything to this article. I wouldn't keep the Fast Times quote either, except that it's clearly noteworthy based on the attention it's generated. Torc2 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone clear this up...

It says that there are the Four Symbols on the cover, but the cover art displayed in the article is of a man carrying a load of sticks on his back. How does this relate? --Freakytiki34 (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. Torc2 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runes?

How could the symbols be classified as runes? They look nothing like them. There might be magical symbols in Germanic folklore looking similar, but that's a different thing. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "runelike" then? Sources in the article state that the symbols were found in "a book of runes" but apparently they're not actually runes? I don't know. But I do know this: the entire section for Page's symbol after the first line is mostly really awful speculation and WP:OR. The only source is a self-published page linked through "See here". (How did that survive for nearly a year?) The Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic, and Alchemical Sigils is available on Google Books, but doesn't mention "Led Zeppelin" at all. The closest I found to anything resembling the ZoSo mark and referring to Saturn was here. The Z is vaguely similar, but the argument that oSo "is similar to the alchemic symbol for mercury"? vs. - well, I don't see it. —Torc. (Talk.) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
But it isn't even runelike. I might agree on several alphabets being runelike, but these geometric symbols look nothing like any runes. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It kind of depends on which definition of 'rune' you use. One definition I found was: "1a. Any of the characters in several alphabets used by ancient Germanic peoples from the 3rd to the 13th century. b. A similar character in another alphabet, sometimes believed to have magic powers" - so, essentially the secondary definition means that sigils are "runes". I also checked out the PDF chart listed on the Runic alphabet page, and Bonham's and Jones' are vaguely similar to some of those. I think calling them "runes" is debatable, but calling them "runelike" should be OK. Like some runes, they're small, symmetric, and consist of just a couple lines or circles. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Runes don't contain circles or rounded lines. It's too difficult to carve in wood or stone. I keep to my conviction, that these are not runes in any valid meaning of the word. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like some did. Runes still existed at a time when writing was common. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1st point, matter of discussion. And these still don't look much like runes. 2nd point, well, yes, but that's irrelevant. I could agree on Old Turkic and Old Hungarian script being runelike, but not these. If scholars have considered them runelike, we could cite them, even though we should classify these symbols as something else. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe the artists themselves considered them runes, but I can't say they were correct. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

There has been a tag marking Album cover and inside sleeve as original reasearch for over a year. I have removed the parts I believe to be OR:

...'The man with the sticks on his back' can also refer to the biblical Cain, who in legend was said to have ended his journeys on the moon, contributing to the image on the face of the moon. ...This would be fitting, given Page's interest in hermetic studies. The house and surrounding area in the picture are by Butterfield Court in the Eve Hill area of Dudley.
The tower block on the back cover is of Butterfield Court in Dudley, England (not the now demolished Prince of Wales Court, as is sometimes incorrectly stated). Butterfield Court can be seen, owing to it being 20-stories high and on top of a ridge, 25 miles away in rural Worcestershire and Shropshire and on a clear day, over 45 miles away in Wales. An image of the tower block can be seen here
The inside of the album sleeve represents the tarot card of the Hermit it was painted by Barrington Coleby (the name is misspelled on the album sleeve), a friend of Jimmy Page's who lives in Switzerland.

Please source this analysis to a something if returning the materail to the article. BTW if the inside cover really refers to the Hermit the man with sticks is likely a tarot card as well rather than Cain, but please find a source.--BirgitteSB 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #1 album

I searched on the list of #1 albums of 1971. And Led Zeppelin IV is not listed as a #1 album in any week. So I guess its not vandalsm that somone put into the article I guess. --Rio de oro (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not #1 in the United States but it was #1 in a number of other countries. MegX (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone should remove the #1 table for the USA(Billboard 200) on the main article section.--Rio de oro (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)