Physical Graffiti in Progarchives

I believe that if Fireball is included in the site as prog, Physical Graffiti, and maybe even In through the out door; Physical Graffitti contains tracks such as Kashmir or in the Light that are ceratinly porg, or at least proto-prog.

If there are bands on the progarchives that were not widely considered as "prog" or "prog related" in the 70's, time cannot change the actual music, therefore they are still not "prog" or "prog related" now. I love Led Zeppelin, but I love them as a rock and roll band. Never a prog band.

Sure there are "prog" songs by non-prog artists, such as Led Zeppelin. But I don't see why we should include them in the archives. That's just my opinion.

zabriskiepoint wrote: I believe that if Fireball is included in the site as prog, Physical Graffiti, and maybe even In through the out door; Physical Graffitti contains tracks such as Kashmir or in the Light that are ceratinly porg, or at least proto-prog.

This debate has come up many many times. Let's not dupe Led Zeppelin or this site for their current exclusion. Yes they should be included.....not negotiable. Stairway to Heaven, Gallows Pole, Houses Of The Holy, Down By The Seaside, 10 years gone, Kashmir ( plains of Gorgoroth!). Deep Purple are on here and good move, I mean we have Styx for God's sake. Zeppelin would do the site proud. I don't think we should quibble about whether they are progressive or not. This site makes allowances even into folk realms. I would even love to see Black Sabbath here , underground that they were.

Led Zeppelin is the greatest rock and roll band in the history of man, not a prog band.  I'm Led Zeppelin's number one fan and I DON'T think they should be included here.  They didn't consider themselves as progressive rock and 99.9% of people don't consider the Zepp as progressive rock so let's stay with the consensus and consider them a "normal" rock" band.  I don't understand the motives people have to make great rock bands such as Queen, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin somehow into progressive rock.  It's as they can't admit that it's possible for there to be great bands that AREN'T progressive rock, or in fact, better than most progressive rock.  Some of Led Zeppelin's songs are very symphonic "Kashmir", "Down by the Seaside" and even include some mellotron "Rain Song", and might even be considered prog if done by other bands "Carouselambra" but that doesn't mean that they are prog in the strict sense of the word.  Stop trying to characterize great rock bands as progressive rock!!   

Edited by robertplantowns

I don't want to characterize Led Zeppelin as progressive band!

I want only that their unquestionable prog efforts (Friends, Kashmir, No Quarter...) can be discussed and reviewed, somehow, here in PA!

Agree with you Stephen, but I'd include also Blue Oyster Cult!

Edited by Andrea Cortese

Dick Heath wrote: zabriskiepoint wrote: I believe that if Fireball is included in the site as prog, Physical Graffiti, and maybe even In through the out door; Physical Graffitti contains tracks such as Kashmir or in the Light that are ceratinly porg, or at least proto-prog. How can Kashmir  be proto anything being recorded at least 6 years after the probable start date of prog in 1968? That master of the guitar 'Prof' David 'Fuze' Fuczinski, calls this stuff eastern exotic groove jams

Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple can be seen as Proto-Prog in regard to the Prog Metal bands ... but IMO that's too far fetched. These bands were Proto-Metal, if anything. And then out of Metal Prog-Metal came to be.

I guess many people simply confuse Proto-Prog and Prog Related.

rockandrail wrote: Wouldn' there be some misunderstanding in the use of "proto-prog"? Some understand it as "prototype prog" like a prototype machine as compared to the final product. Others understand it as "almost-prog" or "nearly-prog". Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen have been "nearly-prog" with some numbers on some albums. Not Proto-prog the way "Stray" or "Mayblitz" were. I personally use the expression "frontier-prog" to qualify bands like Led Zep. I mean band who were not prog but came very close and could have become. For what it's worth

Proto Prog really means "Prototype" Prog. The Problem with Deep Purple is that their first two albums are considered to be Proto-Prog by some, and thus they were put in Proto-Prog. But IMO they belong to Prog Related (which is intended for "Nearly Prog" bands, as you put it), because in retrospect Deep Purple are not remembered for songs like April or their collaboration with a symphony orchestra, but for key albums like Machine Head or In Rock.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

I think the inclusion of Led Zeppelin, and indeed Black Sabbath, is a double edged sword. Whilst there are certainly progressive moments in their catalogue, whether there is enough to justify their inclusion is doubtful. Also, the term 'prog related' does neither band any favours- it in my opinion devalues their music in a sense.

For me, the inclusion of Deep Purple was 100% the right one- I've said many times that it was a grave injustice that the band weren't here, and offshoots like Captain Beyond, Warhorse (even Blackmore's Night!) plus bands who did similar music to DP yet came later, such as Quatermass, Odin, Uriah Heep and Still Life were. I'd say there were at least 6 albums I'd label as being 'progressive rock', either in the early days of the genre with albums like 'Shades...', '..Taliesyn', 'Deep Purple', 'Concerto...', 'In Rock' and 'Fireball'. For me, all of these albums have more than enough progressive content on them.

Politician wrote: Maybe the solution would be to have a "Classic Rock" classification in which all these bands could be included. Because whilst many prog fans love LED ZEPPELIN, QUEEN, DEEP PURPLE, BLACK SABBATH et al, none of those bands is prog per se.

Don't forget Blue Oyster Cult!