![]() |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <123> |
Author | ||
Arsillus ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: March 26 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7374 |
![]() |
|
No!
Led Zeppelin is a great band, but not prog. As I've heard some other member(s) echo, this is PROG archives, not GOOD MUSIC archives. All prog is good music (except neo
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Padraic ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
![]() |
|
My sentiments exactly. I've always felt "prog-related" could get out of hand very quickly. I think this site could use a big disclaimer of some sort: "PROG is not a badge of honor, it's a method of describing/classifying music. There are many outstanding bands who are not classified as prog; this does not detract from them in any way." No offense to whoever this was, but someone posted a few days ago "Boston is my favorite band - why aren't they listed here?" See what I mean? It's like this place is a musical country club - "what, you're saying my favorite band isn't good enough to get in?" Need to find a way to quell this sentiment. Edited by NaturalScience - June 19 2006 at 17:02 |
||
![]() |
||
crimson thing ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: April 28 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 848 |
![]() |
|
Maybe if we capped the number of bands who could be allowed in........then for every band we wanted to include, as long as we could agree on an ejection..........although that does sound like the first step on the way to "Prog Brother".........
![]() |
||
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Fassbinder ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() VIP Member Joined: May 27 2006 Location: My world Status: Offline Points: 3497 |
![]() |
|
I don't mind LZ inclusion.
|
||
![]() |
||
Australian ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() ![]() Joined: June 13 2006 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3278 |
![]() |
|
Why would they be included? They are one of the greatest rock bands but they are in noe way prog.
|
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Abstrakt ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: August 18 2005 Location: Soundgarden Status: Offline Points: 18292 |
![]() |
|
Some of their stuff is prog-like, but they are no prog band
|
||
![]() |
||
chopper ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 13 2005 Location: Essex, UK Status: Offline Points: 20033 |
![]() |
|
As much as I love Led Zep, I don't think they're prog enough to be included here. However there is (at least) one prog site that has included them - http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1
|
||
![]() |
||
Phil ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: June 17 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
![]() |
|
No !!! Great band, some tracks that might lay claim to being proggy, but NO!!!!
As others have said, "prog" and "great" music are not necessarily one and the same. Just because they're great doesn't merit inclusion. Yes, I am fussed about it. They're basically a blues band with some rocky licks.
|
||
![]() |
||
Barla ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: April 13 2006 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 4309 |
![]() |
|
Of course, as Prog Related. They have a lot of Prog moments, like "Stairway To Heaven", "No Quarter", "Dazed And Confused", etc, etc .... all ALL the live jamming, like the live versions of "Dazed...", of 30 minutes or more. Just listen to them and tell me if they aren't Prog !! And, if here are classic rock bands like Deep Purple and Queen (I agree about them of being Prog Related), why shouldn't Zep be here ? |
||
![]() |
||
Ghandi 2 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: February 17 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1494 |
![]() |
|
Live jamming doesn't make somebody prog. If it did, then DMB and The Grateful Dead would have to be here too, wouldn't they?
I vote no, because prog related can become a slippery slope. IMO, prog related is more for solo projects by prog artists that aren't quite prog (see Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson, Rick Wright, Syd Barrett, David Gilmour, etc.) instead of artists that occasionally, sometimes have moments that are sort of prog. Queen are more prog than Zeppelin, if simply for Bohemian Rhapsody. (which I don't really like that much, but that's not the point) Besides, Zeppelin mostly ripped off old Blues songs and played them louder and harder; and that's not very prog.
|
||
![]() |
||
crimson thing ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: April 28 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 848 |
![]() |
|
I agree on the whole they weren't prog (so no entry here!) And blues was their thing - that was the music they liked. But I would give them credit for progging up Dazed & Confused - especially live - raising it above a straight blues. Also, odd bits of PhysGraf were experimental - not just straight blues. Not prog - but not far off. |
||
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
zFrogs ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: January 21 2006 Location: Brazil Status: Offline Points: 254 |
![]() |
|
Maybe Prog Related but I'm not sure about it.
Deep Purple is not a Proto Prog or Prog Related or wherever and I think that Led Zep is more prog then Purple and both are hard rock bands with some prog elements.
|
||
https://www.instagram.com/erifrog/
|
||
![]() |
||
coffeeintheface ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: May 02 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 397 |
![]() |
|
who cares. A good band is a good band.
|
||
OBQM: www.soundcloud.com/onebigquestionmark (solo project)
nQuixote: www.soundcloud.com/n-quixote (ambient + various musical ideas) |
||
![]() |
||
Sacred 22 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: March 24 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1509 |
![]() |
|
Geeez, you sure make it hard don't you. Man, and I thought you were going to make it easy.
Oh well,..........................................................................damn, I guess I will have to side with Foxtrot
![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Equality 7-2521 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() ![]() Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
![]() |
|
I feel the same way basically. Though I would lean more towards them not being included even as prog-related. They had many undeniably proggy moments, and were highly influential, but were mainly a rock band. Your idea of a seperate catagory is intriguing. I'm not sure how I feel about it.
|
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
![]() |
||
Seyo ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 08 2004 Location: Bosnia Status: Offline Points: 1320 |
![]() |
|
I think they should be considered at least as "PROG RELATED".
|
||
![]() |
||
Philéas ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: June 14 2006 Status: Offline Points: 6419 |
![]() |
|
Another factor speaking in favor of Zep's inclusion is that the bar for
what is accepted as prog is fairly low in my opinion, I keep finding
bands that are equally progressive and even less progressive than Zep
around the archives.
The alternatives there are, in my opinion, are these: 1. Clean up the archives a bit and re-define the prog related category 2. Accept the fact that there already are too many not-so-progressive bands included, and include more such bands (Led Zeppelin for example). 3. Remove the whole prog related category completely (it might do unjustice to certain artists, but it would strangle the debate). 4. Start a sister site called "Slightly Prog Archives" and move bands like Queen there, and also add bands like Led Zeppelin. Personally, I think that alternative one or three are the most reasonable. Edited by Philéas - July 05 2006 at 18:55 |
||
![]() |
||
erik neuteboom ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() Joined: July 27 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 7659 |
![]() |
|
After adding The Beatles and ELO to this site, "Should Led Zep be included in PA?" is a rethorical question, ........YES, this innovative heavy progressive band fully deserves an addition on this site
![]() Edited by erik neuteboom - July 05 2006 at 18:44 |
||
![]() |
||
Philéas ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: June 14 2006 Status: Offline Points: 6419 |
![]() |
|
To call them "heavy progressive" is quite a long stretch. Like most
people so far have said, they do have progressive moments and deserve
to be included as prog related, but to actually call them progressive
is a slight exaggeration.
|
||
![]() |
||
Raff ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 29 2005 Location: None Status: Offline Points: 24429 |
![]() |
|
OK, but the same thing could be applied as easily to Queen or other bands. I know some people see red when faced with the equation "if band X is here, so should be band Y" - however, to me at least, it makes perfect sense. One practical example: I've recently bought Wishbone Ash's "Argus" album. Great record indeed, but I really fail to see how it is proggier than a lot of Led Zeppelin's later output. BTW, referring to your previous post, I would be very much in favour of Option 1 - a complete rethinking of the Prog-Related category, possibly with a space reserved with bands who have been influential or influenced by the prog movement when it was in full swing, or even later. |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <123> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |