Led Zeppelin

oh yippie.. look at all the Zeppelin threads...

for this one a big

no way are they prog... and unless you count their appeal as a marketing tool for prog websites.. not even prog related..

sheeves wrote: i think their innovative style and fantastic live shows makes them prog, especially do to Jimmy Page's different techniques with the guitar, such as using a bow on a guitar and using a doubleneck.

ZowieZiggy wrote: Led Zep is absolutely not prog nor prog related.

Does this mean the Owners & Collaborators who made this choice know nothing about the matter? Add the same about the others that subscribed to the opinion & decision.
Also, have you took a look at the prog-related definition? Here it is:

Rock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined, even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands. A wide subgenre that encompasses two kinds of bands/artist, that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock or were influenced by progressive rock. Even though the music by these artists is sometimes unrelated it had things in common with prog music in that it was very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Sometimes these artists pioneered other rock genres. Though most of these artist can't really be considered progressive themselves, their relation to progressive music is not to be underestimated.

I have underlined the parts that prove in my opinion that you should reconsider your statement. Zeppelin was/had all those.

Back again.

ZowieZiggy wrote: They have released a few acoustic songs ("Tangerine", "That's The Way", "Going To California", "The Battle Of Evermore", "The Rain Song" ... but this is not making a band prog, right ?

That seems to me obscuring the truth. How can you discuss Zepp's progressiveness by only talking about a tiny irrelevant part of their work? How can you ignore the other half of their work, which gave us The Song Remains the Same, Rain Song, No Quarter, Kashmir, In the Light, Trampled Under Foot, In My Time of Dying, Achilles Last Stand and Carouselmbra? Especially if that side based the decision for inclusion. It is these songs that you should be analyzing, not the early acoustic stuff.

ZowieZiggy wrote: As far as I can remember (my first Led Zep record was the single "Whole A Lotta Love" which I purchased in 1970 NO ONE WOULD EVER MENTIONED THE SLIGHTIEST LINK BETWEEN LED ZEP AND PROGIN THOSE DAYS.

Correct, but does this prove anything else than that because of their hot, hard rockin' start, fans kept seeing them as such no matter what? The advantage of the test of time is gaining new perspectives. Anyway it is not perception that is discussed here, but music.

ZowieZiggy wrote: OK, this legendary track (and one of my all time fave rock song) has a vague prog mood (but it is plagiatory, so you can not ).

You're not entitled to call that "plagiarism" until a court sentence; till then, keep the word "inspiration", it's much better. BTW, even the law accepts a certain amount of the "borrowing" kind of "inspiration" (no more than four tempos, or what's the word) as legal and moral.

ZowieZiggy wrote: Led Zep is the quintescence of the hard rock genre (and the influence of  lots ofheavy metal bands - which I do not like).

You seem to be an honest fan, but how can you not notice the way each Zeppelin albums sounds different to the previous? Except for the first two albums, which are indeed the essential compilation of the 60s hard blues-rock made in a groundbreaking new approach, you really can't include any Zeppelin issue to any rock subgenre (prog also). They were just to diverse and, as the definition says, adventurous. Also, pioneering hard rock with their early stuff doesn't set incompatibility with being "prog-related" - that's also stated in the definition.
This being said, I want to remind Avatachron's sentence "not prog, but progressive". I don't see the problem in us all accepting that.
I'm waiting for the reviews, I hope they'll be at least as good as the others you've made in the last time.
Cheers.

andu wrote: Snow Dog wrote: andu wrote: Zowie, you seem to have stumbled only over the non relevant sides of this matter. Sorry.   Cheers. No he hasn't. Look at the thread question. Prog or not. He has answered the query.   You're right, Zowie's basic reaction to the thread is correct. Sorry about that. However most of the rest of the comments is uncorrect and irrelevant.

I don't know about that, but at least he says something! He elaborates by mentioning some songs.

No need to be sorry btw!

andu wrote: Zowie, you seem to have stumbled only over the non relevant sides of this matter. Sorry.   Cheers.

No he hasn't. Look at the thread question. Prog or not. He has answered the query.




Edited by Snow Dog - February 06 2007 at 07:33

I have already mentioned this on another topic.

tuxon wrote: final say from me.   anyone doubting Queen´s prog credentials, they should start buying Queen albums.   edit± or if you have them listen to them.

I don't know what makes you presume that you know Queens material better than anyone else.

Queen did a sort of symphonic pop metal which I loved, but they weren't Prog.

Not Prog, but progressive. That's why they're in ProgRelated...

This is a wind up right?