Led Zeppelin?

Sean Trane wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Name me ten Zeppelin prog tracks ...   C'm on !!!! Dare ya to......   Yup , Thought so!   Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Whole Lotta Love >>> Blues , No Quater, Over the hills and far away >> not prog , Four Sticks >> not prog , In the Light >> not prog (i think, can't really remember it, though), Achilles Last Stand, Dazed and Confused, How Many more times >> Willie Dixon blues , the Battle of Evermore,   Thats about 11 I can think of for now although HOH and Physical Graffitti have other prog moments.     Sorry only six, here!!! You might have forgotten Rain song and one on III, but you will not find 10

Let's see here, Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand are not prog, they're long, but they repeat the same thing over and over until I wonder how it can hold anyone's attention. (don't give me the "krautrock is repetitive" lecture, I know, and I don't like it.)  I'll let  Dazed and  Confused  pass  because  that  psychedelic part in the middle, while extremely boring, passes as prog for some I guess. 

Okay, okay. You won, folks. Zeppelin is not prog
The question is should they be in prog-related category? But that's not the main problem. The main problem is - you have to draw the line somewhere, right? I agree.

I perfectly understand why so many fellow members are raving about including LZ in PA. I'm also a prog fan, after all. Many people are scared that "dam" started cracking after Queen and Iron Maiden entered PA, and now after LZ joined in, we could except the flood of prog-related and prog-not-so-related bands.

Flood=disaster.

But why?

Personally, I would like to include Bowie, Metallica, Bonzo Dog Band, Cream...and many others...let me explain.

I don't feel that the flood is a disaster (although I don't think the flood will happen), I prefer to think of it as a flood of knowledge. What is so wrong about it? What is so wrong about knowing who influenced who, what else happened in music during the prog's heyday?

In my opinion, one more category should be added to the site:what affected prog.
It doesn't necessary need to be in the form of reviewed albums. Actually it can't be, because different music is not the only thing that affected progressive rock.
Everything could be mentioned here: Hendrix, XTC, Megadeth, Stones. Roger Dean and Frank Kelly Freas. Bob Moog, Lawrence Hammond and Leo Fender. Elvis, Fats Domino and Thelonius Monk. Stravinsky. Roger Zelazny and Edgar Allan Poe. Jethro Tull, 17th century agriculturist. Genghis-Khan, Jesus, Buddha. The Big Bang itself.

Of course, there would be no reviews, just the essays from the members, focusing on how person or item affected progrock.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want PA to became Wikipedia. And the problem will stay: where to draw to line in prog-related reviews section. We can rate the amount of how much some band influenced prog: on 1-10 scale, I will give 8 to Hendrix, 7 to Bowie, 5 to Sabbath, 1 to Lou Reed, 0 to Pistols etc. On the other hand, Pistols influenced modern music and therefore modern prog more than it's obvious at first sight. And every member will have different opinion.

But don't worry: even if that happened in some near future (and I don't think so), that would not touch the sacred temples of Elp, Yes and Tull.

So, why so much anger because of Led Zeppelin entry?

Okay, they are not prog. But they're obviously included here for some reason.
Even if you disagree with the foreword on the Led Zeppelin's PA page, there is still a reason why are they here. I don't think that's a joke, don't you think so?

A certain amount of prog fans on this site wanted LZ to be included. Even if you prove to each of them personally that (s)he is very wrong, you can't deny the fact that actually prog fans included Zep in the Archives. This deed was done by people's emotions more than definitions. You can't define art.

Sorry for the long and quite pathetic post, but I'm very emotional person and I don't know to express myself in some other way

You convinced me at one point: I will not try to describe LZ songs as prog simply because band that I love doesn't perfectly fit in the genre that I love. Carouselambra is not prog.

Call me hard-headed, but I still think The Crunge is

Peace.

So deep purple can be here but not zeppelin? why? caus they have a keyboard player? some one please tell me why Queen and Deep purple is more prog then Zeppelin?

clarke2001 wrote: Personally, I would like to include Bowie, Metallica, Bonzo Dog Band, Cream...and many others...let me explain. I

Yeah! What about the Bonzos!

Led Zeppelin? Who are they?

Sean Trane wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Name me ten Zeppelin prog tracks ...   C'm on !!!! Dare ya to......   Yup , Thought so!   Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Whole Lotta Love >>> Blues , No Quater, Over the hills and far away >> not prog , Four Sticks >> not prog , In the Light >> not prog (i think, can't really remember it, though), Achilles Last Stand, Dazed and Confused, How Many more times >> Willie Dixon blues , the Battle of Evermore,   Thats about 11 I can think of for now although HOH and Physical Graffitti have other prog moments.     Sorry only six, here!!! You might have forgotten Rain song and one on III, but you will not find 10

Edited by Cheesecakemouse - November 23 2006 at 17:23

Sasquamo wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Name me ten Zeppelin prog tracks ...   C'm on !!!! Dare ya to......   Yup , Thought so!   Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, Whole Lotta Love >>> Blues , No Quater, Over the hills and far away >> not prog , Four Sticks >> not prog , In the Light >> not prog (i think, can't really remember it, though), Achilles Last Stand, Dazed and Confused, How Many more times >> Willie Dixon blues , the Battle of Evermore,   Thats about 11 I can think of for now although HOH and Physical Graffitti have other prog moments.     Sorry only six, here!!! You might have forgotten Rain song and one on III, but you will not find 10         By the way how come you call In the Light not prog when can't  remember it? I actually has middle eastern music mixed with blues into an epic piece. Also over the hills and far evolves from a folky piece into a funky jam an them back into a folky piece again, Whole Lotta Love isn't just blues what about that psychedelic part in the middle? Stairway to heaven is a mixture of folk, celtic music and blues, that evolve throughout How Many More times is a willie dixon blues song but is rearranged into something unique just like ELP rearranged classical songs. Four Sticks is prog it has odd time signatures and thoe brilliant proggy keyboards. But there's no point debating it, I have a feeling no matter how much evidence I show in LZ's favour you'll just deny it. You havn't actually backed up why you don't think these songs are not prog. LZ combined mythology with folk funk blues and heavy rock  and the odd change in time signatureto create something unique. Pretty much in line with their prog contemporarys, Its just they took a different root. Their music still takes you on journeys of the mind, its just they're not as complicated as the symphonic and art rock groups; thats why they're in prog related. OK, what I'm going to do is make a song all in 4/4.  It's going to start off just blues, then it's going to go into some Indian-folk fusion, I'll even throw in some funk, and then there's going to be some psychadelic noises to end the song.  Of course, my drummer will be emulating a drum machine throughout the song, and all the melody and solos will be very simple.  But according to you it would still be prog, right?  I mean look at all these styles I'm using, it doesn't matter how well I pull them off or how complex the music is, right?  Cool.

Edited by Cheesecakemouse - November 23 2006 at 18:18

Sasquamo wrote: OK, what I'm going to do is make a song all in 4/4.  It's going to start off just blues, then it's going to go into some Indian-folk fusion, I'll even throw in some funk, and then there's going to be some psychadelic noises to end the song.  Of course, my drummer will be emulating a drum machine throughout the song, and all the melody and solos will be very simple.  But according to you it would still be prog, right?  I mean look at all these styles I'm using, it doesn't matter how well I pull them off or how complex the music is, right?  Cool.

The way you described , it could be prog or not-prog. It could be good or bad. It could be boring or interesting, also. It depends of idea and implementation.

What's your point?

My point is that Cheesecakemouse's definition of prog is so vague that all sorts of bands that experiment with different types of music and sounds, and all experimental bands for that matter that any band that has their own unique sound could be called prog.  

tardis wrote: tardis wrote: Led Zeppelin? Who are they? Why hasn't anyone answered my question? I feel so left out.

Only the greatest band of the 70's!