Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine/Archive 1

Connection to Blind Willie Johnson

What's with denial of the link to the Blind Willie Johnson song of the same title? It is the same song with Page's riff being the standout exception to the original track. --Walter Görlitz 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? It's a traditional song listed in the article. Johnson may have recorded a version but he didn't write it. MegX (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• MegX Keeps deleting the following valid material. First she objected because it was unsourced. Then she deleted it because it was irrelevant. It is relevant and shows a connection to Johnson being owed due credit as a song writer.

  A version of the song, using Led Zeppelin's music and many of Johnson's restored lyrics, was recorded by the rock band The 77s on their album Drowning With Land In Sight. Their credits indicate "with apologies to Blind Willie Johnson".

  No one is saying that Page and Plant lifted the material directly from Johnson's version, but it's obvious that credit is owed to him. I would like to determine whether this should stay or be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • You insulting person. It clearly shows on my userpage I am female. If you wish to make it personal I will in future. Credit owed to him? It's a traditional song in public domain. MegX (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • How in the world was I insulting? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: material is unnecessary and ill-informed. The song is traditional and now public domain, so the claim by The 77s is incorrect that gorlitz implies they "stole" it from Johnson. You can't steal from public domain. Secondly, what The 77s sya is inconsequential - they are not a notable band so anything they do so is immaterial.MegX (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I never implied anything. I stated that the band implies it. Please read correctly. This minute point does not change your position though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial coverage of a non-event WP:TRIVIAL WP:RELIABLE. Not necessary for the understanding of the article. JamesBurns (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, as per above. TheClashFan (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete agree with above statements. ZhaoHong (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have struck out the discussion contributions of the sockpuppet accounts, and the clear attempts at distraction. All of MegX, TheClashFan, and ZhaoHong are sockpuppets of JamesBurns. There are in fact only two people talking here. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• So then James owes me an apology for impersonating a woman and then calling me on it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're still letting the distraction achieve its intended goal. Concentrate upon the article. Ignore the distraction. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous non-encyclopedia suitable comments

stuff like "fine harmonica solo" should be taken out. unless you can cite a critic saying so, that is.

Move

• Nobody's Fault But Mine → Nobody's Fault but Mine —(Discuss)— Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization —Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But is a short preposition that is not the first or last word and is not part of a two-word phrasal verb in this instance. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a preposition. It's a conjunction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After a quick search, everywhere I see it the "But" is capped. Is there a source that does it otherwise, or are we imposing grammar on art?LedRush (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. If we were to follow art to the letter, then the album with four sigils on the front cover wouldn't be called Led Zeppelin IV, it would have the sigils instead as the title. MegX (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the album and amazon.com both keep it capped. http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Led-Zeppelin/dp/B000002JSJ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1227025475&sr=8-1

LedRush (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Every one of the songs listed there are capped. I don't see Amazon as final proof. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Capitalization MegX (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous move of the version section

This sort of thing traditionally goes at the bottom of the article. The section deals with all cover versions of the song and should not be mixed in with information about the original band's arrangement, etc. It should definitely be below overview of the song. The "editor" (honestly if the person got an account, I'd be a lot happier with leaving these edits) gives no reason in the edit summary and so until explained, I will assume it's vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the anonymous moving around of sections. The editor still refuses to explain why the edits are happening. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

and now is vandalizing what I've written above, so I'll make a change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing that anonymous user 69.209.122.216 keeps trying to insert into my comment above is:

There are 2 versions- covering of Led Zepp's version and covering of Blind Willie Johnson's version.

To which I say "so what". This is the article about the Led Zeppelin version. Covers of It's Nobody's Fault But Mine should be listed on the page for that song. While the two are related by chorus, it has been established that they're considered different versions.

Another problem is that at least one version, The 77s on Drowning with Land in Sight, attempts to marry the two by using the music from the Led Zeppelin and many of the verses from the traditional version first recorded by Blind Willie Johnson. How does your proposed system of "traditional and Led Zeppelin" allow for that and other hybrid versions (if they exist)?

Had you made your comment in the correct place, instead of inserting it into my comment, we could have started to discuss this days ago. Stop vandalizing and start doing things the tight way. Get over your paranoia and assume we're trying to make Wikipedia a better place instead of attacking your changes as you suggest on "your" user page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

anonymous user 69.209.122.216 just showed that some people don't know how to edit talk pages by deleting much of the content of this section of the talk page and replacing it with:

You talk about merging the articles, but maybe you should talk about separating the articles. The beginning of this article is mostly about Blind Willie's Johnson's version, but after that it appears that everything is about Led Zeppelin's version. This however is not the case. You could put an opening sentence referencing the connection to Blind Willie Johnson's version. Also a better sentence regarding the copyright. Just because there is no copyright, doesn't mean that you can't credit traditional along with other names. The verses are different, but the basic "hook" (chorus) and meaning of the song is the same.

anonymous comments

You talk about merging the articles, but maybe you should talk about separating the articles.

The merge would combine the information from both articles Nobody's Fault but Mine and It's Nobody's Fault but Mine, which are pretty mush the same now. The idea of merging the articles would be to show that they are essentially the same song. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the choruses are not the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of this article is mostly about Blind Willie's Johnson's version, but after that it appears that everything is about Led Zeppelin's version. This however is not the case. You could put an opening sentence referencing the connection to Blind Willie Johnson's version. Also a better sentence regarding the copyright. Just because there is no copyright, doesn't mean that you can't credit traditional along with other names.

The gospel blues version is not Blind Willie's Johnson's as is detailed at in both articles. It was considered to be in the public domain. A print copy of the song was published in 1924 and Johnson's recording of it was in 1927.

The reason that this version is not considered traditional is because so much of it was reworked.

Instead of hacking at this article and making it unworkable, why don't you fix it so that a better opening sentence appears? However, to suggest that it only Johnson's work is not supported by the facts and would be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The verses are different, but the basic "hook" (chorus) and meaning of the song is the same.

The meaning of the song is not the same. The traditional version is about damnation and salvation, while the Zep version is about drug use and trying to kick the habit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

-- The previous unsigned comment was inserted (after deleting the previous section) by the user at IP 70.229.32.51

I agree with separating stuff out. See my section in the discussion below about the Led Zeppelin stuff. I don't believe SO MUCH Zeppelin information is called for in a general article about a song. It looks like a fanboy went crazy and put in a ton of stuff about their favourite band doing the song.

However, I do agree that the articles *should* be merged. They really are about the same song.Theshowmecanuck (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Formatting comment to our anonymous editor

I reverted your earlier edits for two reasons:

1. You are still formatting the headings incorrectly. Please see H:E, specifically the section on Section headings. Notice that it reads: "Start with 2 equals signs not 1 because 1 creates H1 tags which should be reserved for page title."
2. When you deleted the section on the single, you didn't leave a comment in the edit summary. When you delete information both anonymously and without an edit summary, it looks like vandalism. I see that simply inserted it into the other list of covers. Is there a reason why you feel the remainder of the information is not needed?

One other thing. This is a talk page. Deleting information from talk pages is considered vandalism, particularly when you didn't add it. If this continues, I will request that the admins take action again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Blanking this page is not called-for. It's a discussion. When you blank the page, or at least the discussion, you show that you're not interested in talking. Explain your edits, particularly the one related to removing the information of the single and folding it in to the rest of the covers. It makes some sense, but I would like a reason so that the original editor can know. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The comments are kept to see the discussion. Since you're not their author, you have no right to remove them. Contact an admin to remove them or strike them out. You don't just arbitrarily delete items on talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your comments are considered archival. My comments are not for you to delete. Please talk to an admin to delete them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete your edits. Do not ever delete my edits from this talk page again. Do you understand? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting my edits. They are not yours to delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More comments to the anonymous editor

This is a talk page. It's not the article. It's not up to you to delete anything on this page unless you wrote it. I am assuming good faith, but you're not. You continue to delete edits that you did not make because they make you look bad. Stop it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is now semi protected in response to repeated comment refactoring by multiple IPs. Mfield (Oi!) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Grow up. Stop deleting the comments that make you look bad. They're not yours to delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that your recent vandalism used "Tag: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" to revert my edits. I am a long-time user and you're making anonymous edits. It may alert admins to your actions not mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Otis Redding

On my Led Zeppelin CD it has the composer listed as: Otis Redding

But, there is no mention of him in this article.

Que? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

zeppelin II album sleeve inconsistency

Inconsistency between articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobody%27s_Fault_but_Mine#Led_Zeppelin.27s_version Led Zeppelin had previously included a photograph of Blind Willie Johnson on the cover of their earlier album, Led Zeppelin II, who served as an inspiration for this title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_II#Album_sleeve_design Contrary to popular belief, the guitarist Blind Willie Johnson is not featured on the album cover. There is only one known photo of Johnson in existence, and it is not the same face as the one shown on the album cover.

neither includes citations Torskerogn (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Jones

On "PRAISE AND BLAME" by Tom Jones, issued summer 2010, Tom Jones gives the credits for this song - falsely - to himself and his producer, Ethan Johns! 86.87.77.210 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He did not record the Zep version. It's the one first recorded by Blind Willie Johnson. That's based on the 30 second sample from Amazon. He uses lyrics from the public domain version and doesn't appear to use either of the riffs introduced in the Page & Plant version. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So Much Led Zeppelin in this article?

Seriously, there is so much Led Zeppelin stuff in this article it reads more like an article on Zeppelin's coverage of the song than about the song itself. I suggest waiting awhile to give people a chance to fix this and then remove ALL the Zeppelin material except a bare minimum.Theshowmecanuck (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Besides a slight nod to Blind Willie Johnson, other artists who performed and recorded the song before Led Zep (e.g.: Sister Rosetta Tharp) are not even mentioned. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because since the original comment was made before the articles were split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Originally arranged by parameter?

Template:Infobox song does not have a parameter for "Originally arranged by =" which, at least one editor think belongs in the article. Any reason that it should be included? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong there, any more than a genre that you just happen to like but which has no source does. Please stop. Radiopathy •talk• 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't belong, why do you keep adding it back in? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, from what I've seen of your contribs, you seem to be a very good editor; I don't understand what's got into you today. Radiopathy •talk• 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I could say the same about you, except the bit about looking at your edits and knowing what kind of editor you are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced genres

I think that the genres should be referenced. An anon added what I think is an accurate genre here, but another editor seems to think that it's not required and has started to genre war over it. Will tag both and leave it as is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That editor reverted another IP the other day for the same thing. If you add a genre to an infobox at this point in time, it better damn well be sourced or it will be reverted. Persistent changes to suit one's taste will get one blocked. Radiopathy •talk• 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That editor is you. Actually, neither genre is sources so you had better find one or they're both gone. Persistent changes to suit one's taste will get one blocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And I don't care what you do on articles I don't watch. You can revert there for the most lame reasons you can come up with (like this one). In short, since neither genre is referenced either removing either is equally valid. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They could both be removed, which will provoke more genre warring, or, like at many Rock articles, the genre could just the a generic Rock. But any new genres that are added to the infobox need to be sourced or they will be removed; it's the editor who persists in re-adding a disputed genre who is perceived as the genre warrior, just as with any other type of edit warring. Radiopathy •talk• 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're making things up and it's not becoming. The rules for wikiepdia are RS and V. Currently, neither is presence. Adding another equally reliable or unverifiable source is not creating a dispute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The parent album,Presence (album) lists both genres and a third. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

All music refers to it as "the lumbering blues workout 'Nobody's Fault But Mine'" [1]. One for blue, not quite blues rook, but no mention of hard rock related to the song in the review. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Billboard is no help: [2] --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No help at sputnik [3]] --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Final two. "ferocious 'Nobody's Fault but Mine'" [4] no specific genre. Also rollingstone offers nothing [5].

Conclusion Hard rock is not supported while blues rock is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I support using Rock, which is used a lot in music articles. If an appropriate genre can be found with a source, I support using that as well. As it stands, a fleeting mention of 'blues' cannot be used to support the disputed 'Blues rock' genre. Radiopathy •talk• 00:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That genre is no more supported than the other two. It's no wonder genre wars start. Blues rock is the better choice based on the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always liked how so many regular editors of Queen articles seemed to have banded together to cleave off every single Queen article as just simply 'Rock' (which is an appropriate answer for many bands... this one included.) And whenever anyone tries to change it... it is quickly reverted based on that long standing consensus. Personally... as far as the original conversation about the merits of blues rock for this article... if I saw that term added to the box without several clearly worded references to back it up.... I would have reverted it as well. I am probably one of the few editors who is lucky enough (meaning old enough) to have actually seen Led Zeppelin in concert (twice) in the 70s. They were not a blues or blues-rock band to any of us. They were heavy metal through and through. I would hold hard rock in place for this article unless a consensus back on the Led Zeppelin main page was reached to change every single album and song to "Rock." That is my 2 cents. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A worthwhile $0.02, and agree that they are hard rock, but this song is more blues-oriented. Should eschew correct classification of each song for a generic term? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I only said that since it seems to work so well for Queen. Just to add... if someone does start that conversation over there... I would gladly re-state my opinion that as long as everyone agrees (and it would take many "supports" to make it stick)... that we could lay down a rule of polished stone that all song article be labelled simply rock. I think the albums and the main Led Zeppelin article are all fine saying Hard rock, heavy metal, blues rock, folk rock... since that covers all that they do. PS - whenever anyone adds 'progressive rock' to anything associated with the band... ti is just wrong. Have a great day! Mr Pyles (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PPS I would never attempt to change any Led Zeppelin article's long standing genre without inviting Scieberking to the conversation since that user has a long standing passion for anything related to the band. (there are many others like that one) LOL! Mr Pyles (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Radiopathy is right here. I've found and added a book reference for "hard rock" but I can't find anything for "blues-rock". 1 and 2 (weakly reliable). That has to be hard rock with blues influence. @ Mr Pyles- Thanks a bunch for the "hono(u)rable mention". Scieberking is much pleased :) Regards, Scieberking (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference is no better than the blues one I found: "Ultimately 'Nobody's Fault but Mine' would be the closest Presence would come to generating a sizeable hit. Striking a blow to the instrument's common misuse in hard rock, it's a joy to hear Plant's harmonica tear through the speakers...". That doesn't indicate that the song is hard rock at all. It's that the rest of the album is hard rock and then in this song, we hear a typical blues instrument. It doesn't fly, sorry. I will remove it again if we can't get a better explanation of how the song is hard rock. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Even this source says "amplified power blues". My personal opinion is that it's a bluesy hard rock song. "Blues" and "blues-rock" are two entirely different things, right? Why "blues-rock" is even being used in the infobox? Regards, Scieberking (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Blues rock" is a genre that "amplified power blues" describes perfectly. The reason why it's in the infobox is that it describes the song perfectly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong here. Amplified power blues doesn't necessarily mean blues rock. Even if you are right, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you want to add blues rock in the infobox, you must find a reliable source that exactly says so. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and if we want to keep hard rock, we need to find a reliable source for that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In short, the only genre we have clearly referenced is blues. I am fully prepared to insert that genre but I don't think there's consensus for it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the earlier comments in this discussion I was of the feeling that the consensus being formed was that it was a hard rock song and not a blues rock song. I had no problem with Scieberking's first ref to be honest. When I think "amplifies power blues"... the 1st thing that comes into my head is that I am filing that one under hard rock on my MP3 player... since "amplified power blues isn't a legit genre. As for whether the whole article rates a page... if we are going to open that can of worms... then that should go right back to the main Led Zeppelin article becaue if this one doesn't get a page.... 80% of the rest of them won't either. I can remember a time when someone made an article for every single Iron Maiden song. BOY it was a battle to get all the re-directs plugged in on that one. Ans same for the dozens of Black Sabbath album tracks... again big time job re-directing them all. Unless its a charting single or a song which has numerous notable cover versions... it doesn;t need a page. And that could apply to quite a few Led Zeppelin song article right now if you really think about it. But again... that scope of a conversation is better discussed somewhere else other than the talk page of this incredible and classic hard rock song. Just as an FYI side tidbit. If anyone wants to go back through the archived talk pages of WP:RS... for music genres where there is a dispute... the glowing consensus is that Allmusic is NOT to be used as a reference. Since that website is extremely loose with the genres and styles they use in their fancy little side-boxes. I wasn't involved in that original discussion at wp:rs. But I read back through it recently. And had I been invited to take part... I would have agreed with that consensus. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that AllMusic's lists of genres are not reliable, but that their reviews are. I wasn't suggesting to remove the article completely. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Pyles. There's 3:1 consensus now to keep "hard rock" and remove "blues rock". Regards, Scieberking (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a WP:VOTE. There is no consensus only opinion. You have not proven your point and your edit was in bad faith. Will revert if you don't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As explained, the reference fails verification miserably. You can't even provide an honest reference. It opens to "result 3 of 3" which a track listing in teh discography section on page 279 in the article. The second is on page 278, again bad reference. The first result says nothing about either hard rock or any other genre in relation to the song. Be a good researched and stop blowing smoke. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: no amount of consensus will change the result that the reference doesn't support the claim. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why some editors don't understand simple Wikipedia policies. Find a reference to support the genres and we can change them. Without it, the maintenance template remains in place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reading the talk page and someone seems to have decided that references are not important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hijacked?

What is the concern here? This was a regular edit, with referenced material. Discuss your objections. -Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The deletion of the entire introduction is my concern. It turned the article from about the song in general to about one particular version/variation of it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted 1) the duplicated info already included (better) in the "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine" article; 2) Johnson's song IS registered with BMI (work # 6763766), which, like ASCAP, is not a copyright authority; 3) claim of public domain needs a reliable source; and 4) the recorded version by the Dead is credited to Johnson on Dick's Picks Volume 1 and therefore "should go on the 'It's...' page" according to the hidden note at Cover versions. It appears that at one point, a concentrated effort was made to treat Zep's version separate from Johnson's. If a more general song article is wanted, why have a separate article for the trad/Johnson song? -Ojorojo (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was far from a regular edit. The lede related to the history of the folk melody was removed and then redacted and added after the new lede. Removal of genre that was referenced and against consensus was applied--this is the worst part of the edit. Personnel of the original recording was removed. All references to ASCAP was removed, including the EL to the copyright. The rest of the edits were improvements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Public domain of the original melody is common knowledge and does not need to be referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

NO GENRE WAS REMOVED, a second was added with a reference (check the diff). All four members and their instruments are discussed in the article; a personnel section is redundant. ASCAP is not a copyright authority, so what is the purpose of mentioning it? If it is "common knowledge" that Johnson's song is in the public domain, then it should be easy to find a reliable source. Again, if the history is wanted, why have a separate article that discusses it more completely and accurately? -Ojorojo (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We need a quotation to verify that the reference supports the newly added genre and it should not be first, if the reference supports the claim, as there are two references to support the other genre while only one to support the first.

The song is in the public domain, and it's not Johnson's. He simply recorded it and applied no copyright to it. I also think you misunderstand what common knowledge is, but I'll reference WP:RS and Wikipedia:Common knowledge and even reference some of the references used here that indicate that since the song was in PD that they could apply a copyright to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The genre quotation is included in the last sentence in the lead (earlier revision). It was entered first in the infobox because is mentioned first in the article. Anything as arcane as copyright law cannot be generalized – Robert Johnson's songs were thought to be in the public domain, but the court decided as recently as 2000 that the copyrights belong to his estate (read the rational: "ABKCO Music v. Stephen LaVere". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. June 26, 2000. – if you have a reliable source please include it. -Ojorojo (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see the quote now. Could some of the surrounding material be provided?

The fact that Johnson's version has copyright protection doesn't mean that the song wasn't in the PD before. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, all of my concerns have been addressed except for the order of the genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote is in a paragraph discussing the song. Shadwick does a better job, but Davis was included for the rock reference. I am not saying that that Johnson's isn't PD, just that if we say it it should have a RS. Listing "electric blues" first is OK (2 refs vs. 1). It seems the main concern is keeping some of the referenced history. I'll work on it tomorrow with these points in mind. -Ojorojo (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm trying to get across, which is probably nobody's fault but mine. The song had a life before and after Johnson's recording. Since his was the first, popular recording, it is associated with him, but he certainly did not apply for copyright.

Looking back at an early version of the article, before LZ fans forced this article to be focused on their version and a new one on the traditional version, there were three references given: Kennedy, Robert Emmet (1925). Mellows, a Chronicle of Unknown Singers. p. 150.; Abbott, Lynn (2007). Ragged But Right: Black Travelling Shows, "Coon Songs", and the Dark Pathway to Blues and Jazz. p. 167. ISBN 1578069017. and McNeil, W. K. (2005). Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music. p. 206. ISBN 0415941792. You might also want to check It's Nobody's Fault but Mine for additional refs and information on the origins. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a content fork. Does WP:SONGCOVER apply? Anyway, two of your references are included; I'll check McNeil. -Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if either is a fork. Both songs are notable. The two tried to coexist, but it's clear that they should be separate articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hard rock

Once I wanted to add "Hard rock" but my reference was apparently not reliable enough.

I just found interesting reviews about the 25th greatest Led Zeppelin songs, made by a "company that writes and reports on all things music" (by that I mean a reliable reference). Here's "Nobody's Fault but Mine" review :

20. Nobody's Fault But Mine (from the 1976 album Presence)

Like any great rock band Led Zeppelin was firmly rooted in the blues. “Nobody’s Fault But Mine” is a traditional gospel song made famous in 1927 by blues legend Blind Willie Johnson. This is a relentless rocker built behind a delta blues-based riff. “Nobody’s Fault But Mine” features Robert Plant playing a bluesy harmonica solo and Jimmy Page’s famous slide guitar intro. This is a song full of swagger and it shows Zeppelin’s ability to turn a traditional gospel/blues song into an all out blues jam mixed with a good dose of hard rock. (from this website)

So according to this review, Led Zeppelin's "Nobody's Fault But Mine" is actually a hard rock song which features blues elements.

So I think hard rock should be added. 86.214.54.113 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And if they happened to say it was disco would you be fighting for it? Bands make claims about their own music. We call these claims WP:PRIMARY sources. We prefer to use WP:SECONDARY sources instead. From what I can tell, http://www.madcapmusicreview.com isn't a WP:RS either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not disco. But "Nobody's Fault But Mine" features guitar riffs which are too heavy to be only regarded as a blues rock song and how can you say http://www.madcapmusicreview.com is not a reliable source ? It is written by a company, not by an anonymous guy on his blog or a forum. 86.214.54.113 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed it was disco. The point was that what the band says is irrelevant. They may be trying to market the album to a particular audience. If you want to take the source to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, feel free, but it doesn't appear to be a reliable source. The authors and staff are not obviously professional: http://www.madcapmusicreview.com/Pages/About_MMR/Contributors.html The editorial policy isn't clear: http://www.madcapmusicreview.com/Pages/About_MMR/WhoWeAre.html Even if the site were reliable for some things, http://www.madcapmusicreview.com/Pages/The_List/25_Greatest_Led_Zeppelin_Songs.html might not be. Who wrote that piece? There's no author. It feels like a vanity site. A well-done vanity site, but it's still not a professional site. But as I wrote, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I just took the source to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 86.214.54.113 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This time I found a real reliable reference here. This book was written by Jon Bream, an American music critic (if you don't trust me, here's a quick introduction of him). At page 195 of his book "Whole Lotta Led Zeppelin: The Illustrated History of the Heaviest Band of All Time", he describes Nobody's Fault :

"Ultimately, “Nobody's Fault But Mine” would be the closest that Presence would come to generating a sizeable hit. Striking a lethal blow against the instrument's common misuse in hard rock, it's a joy to hear Plant's cathartic harmonica tear through the speakers at a point when a guitar solo is expected."

So I maintain what has been said before : hard rock should be added. 86.214.54.113 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Striking a lethal blow against the instrument's common misuse in hard rock" - that's not supporting your view at all. Flat Out let's discuss it

Is this "Rolling Stone Presence review". helpful? Hard rock is mentioned a couple of times regarding the overall album and "NFBM" is not lumped in with "dreary examples of blooze". (PS: use indentations, it makes it easier to follow). Ojorojo (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's a RS, but the genre is mentioned in relation to the band and album in general but not the song. Here's where the song is mentioned: "Actually there is some fine rock on Presence. 'Nobody's Fault but Mine' is strong, while 'Candy Store Rock' ...". It claims the song is simply "rock". So while the album is clearly hard rock (or hard-rock as the review puts it) the song itself is not identified.

The RS/N discussion seems to have concluded that madcapmusicreview.com is not a RS at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that "Scott's Rock and Soul Album Reviews" is a reliable source. Scott Floman is a music critic for Goldmine magazine so I don't understand why you said it was unreliable. For proof, his professional ratings are used on Wikipedia pages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Period_of_Transition#Reception, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength_(album)#Reception and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veedon_Fleece#Reception.

And on these other pages, his critics are used to describe songs :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenes_from_an_Italian_Restaurant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(Cyndi_Lauper_song), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Wilson_Said_(I%27m_in_Heaven_When_You_Smile)#Reception, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clocks_(song)#Reception

So the first reference I used to show "Nobody's Fault but Mine" is a hard rock song (this one) is entirely reliable, and here's Floman review for this song :

"As for the album's secondary highlight, “Nobody’s Fault But Mine” is an excellent, hard rocking song on which the band (especially Bonham, who is in first-rate form throughout the album) is firing on all cylinders, while Plant gives a compelling, stuttered vocal performance and is even a standout on harmonica (as on previous songs such as "Bring It On Home," "When The Levee Breaks," and "In My Time Of Dying"). Unfortunately, since Blind Willie Johnson had recorded the song in the '20s (though as per usual Zep's is significantly different), once again Zep were accused of plagiarism, which could've been avoided had they simply afforded Johnson a deserved co-writing credit."

A "hard rocking song", it's supporting my view, isn't it ? 86.214.54.113 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really just the fallacy of equivocation. Does a "hard rocking song" mean that the genre is hard rock? Does it mean that it's a song that it's a "hard, rocking song", a "hard-rocking song", or that the band performs well? Please don't read into what the author is saying. Otherwise, it's not a bad reference for the song.

If you want, I can show you how to link to Wikipedia sections correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, which I haven't stated, I don't disbelieve that the song is a hard rock song, but to get the genres to the current state too a great deal of debate and we need to find a RS to add a new genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is more likely that he talks about a "hard-rocking song", even if Floman didn't add a dash between the 2 words, and that he means hard rock by the same way. Yes I understand a RS is mandatory to add a new genre on pages such as "Nobody's Fault but Mine", because these kind of songs feature genres which may seem different from one individual to another. I totally agree with blues rock, but I find this song too much aggressive for a blues rock song. That's why I would like to add hard rock. The source I have is reliable and the review is quite clear, so I don't see any other problem. 86.214.54.113 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not "quite clear", and that's the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"An excellent, hard rocking song" doesn't have many meanings. It means an "excellent hard rock song". Floman chose to add "-ing" to "rock" and decided to separate the two words "excellent" and "hard" but it doesn't change a lot what he actually decided to say. 86.214.54.113 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. I showed that above. I'm sorry you missed it. It could mean what you say but it could mean other things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz, if the source is open to interpretation then that's a good sign that it's not a reliable source. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The source itself is a reliable source, it's only the description of "Nobody's Fault But Mine" that is quite ambiguous. And I can't find any other reliable references (even on foreing language speaking websites or in Google Books). 86.214.54.113 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic source

The recent changes made by Ojorojo relies heavily on the Stephen Davis book as a reference. This book is considered unreliable and relies heavily on hearsay and opinion. This article now, I consider best avoided. BluesBanana (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@BluesBanana: According to whom and for what reasons is the Davis book unreliable? (Yes, I'm asking for reliable sources about a source's alleged unreliability.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This same concern was raised by another Zeppelin fan User:Bluesfan 1928 on the Talk:It's Nobody's Fault but Mine#Merging 11/2013 discussion. Still waiting for reliable sources to back his view. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)