Led Zeppelin
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34073
Printed Date: March 04 2025 at 07:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Led Zeppelin
Posted By: sheeves
Subject: Led Zeppelin
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:20
| 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:22
|
I would say definitely and absolutely.......NOT!
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:24
No ..but then neither are Queen. 
...you know this poll will get deleted any minute
 |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:29
You mean that Queen aren't Prog?  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
richardh wrote:Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:57
|
Stupid notion not to consider Queen prog. Just listen to My Fairy king, March Of the Black Queen, Killer Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody, Millionaire waltz, Bicicle race, Innuendo and I´m Going Slightly mad and than make the same statement again, and while your at it, listen to Mr Bad Guy and The Golden Boy from F. Mercury´s soloi albums, maybe listen to Radio GaGa aswell, for there is some progressive stuff in there aswell.
Queen is as progressive as ELP, YES and GENESIS were, they just started selling out before Yes and Genesis did )ELP sold out before Queen and ELP was an influence for Queen )listen to Brain salad Surgery and than to Queen II .
anyway led Zeppelin aren´t progressive rock. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 17:59
Yes, yes yes I have heard everything by Queen...and? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 18:03
what and, so you say that the listed songs are not progressive songs ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: keith_emerson
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 18:04
|
Led Z: Not progressive Queen: Not progresive (it's stupid to think the opposite ) |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 18:07
|
This is a wind up right?
Visit the site's definition of Prog Rock here:
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp
 |
Posted By: giantenemycrab
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 19:28
LZ is good, but not prog by any means. That doesn't make them any less of a band though!  Queen has a few songs that have a dash of progressive added to the mixture.. But they aren't prog either. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 19:50
| Not Prog, but progressive. That's why they're in ProgRelated... |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 22:30
|
and why doesn´t anyone agree with me that Queen where prog, you should know that intelligent answers gets bonus points for your post counts ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 22:33
| Queen did a sort of symphonic pop metal which I loved, but they weren't Prog. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 22:45
|
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'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 04:22
I don't know what makes you presume that you know Queens material better than anyone else.  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 05:01
best statement so far.
writing a bunch of prog songs doesn't make a band, any band, prog. however, credit where credit's due, so they're both here. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 07:07
|
I have already mentioned this on another topic.
Led Zep is absolutely not prog nor prog related.
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 ?
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.
So, since their insertion on PA, all of sudden they should be prog ? Is this a joke ?
I also gave my comments already about "Stairway". The inspiration (to say the least) is a track that is called "Taurus" from the band "Spirit" (it is ever more obvious than "She's So Fine" for "My Sweet Lord" if you see what I mean).
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 ).
Is Genesis a hard-rock band because they released "The Knife" and "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed" ? Of course not.
Led Zep is the quintescence of the hard rock genre (and the influence of lots ofheavy metal bands - which I do not like). Forget about prog here.
It is one of the major rock band in history. Period.
But since they are included here I will review their whole wonderful catalogue.
Cheers. ------------- ZowieZiggy |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 07:31
|
Zowie, you seem to have stumbled almost only over the non relevant sides of this matter. Sorry.
Cheers. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 07:33
No he hasn't. Look at the thread question. Prog or not. He has answered the query. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 07:39
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. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 07:44
I don't know about that, but at least he says something! He elaborates by mentioning some songs. No need to be sorry btw!  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 13:24
| As a band, no, but some of their songs are. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 14:22
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:
I have underlined the parts that prove in my opinion that you should reconsider your statement. Zeppelin was/had all those. Back again.
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.
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.
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.
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. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 15:37
I was sort of waiting for Ivan's response...  ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: February 06 2007 at 17:32
Yes but 'innotive' and 'prog' are two different things.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: February 14 2007 at 20:04
|
OK. It seems that my remarks have not left indifferent (specially Andu to whom most of this reply is intended). That's already something.
Led Zep did effectively change from genre between albums (but so did Bowie and that does not make him a prog artist, right) ?
I guess that some will tell me that his "Berlin Trilogy" is prog-related which is completely true. Actually "Low" might even be called prog. Should you have some doubts, listen carefully on the B-side (I'm talking vinyl) and even closer to "Warszawa" and "Subterranean"...
Just for my peace of mind, there's no need to send furious messages telling me that Bowie is a glam rocker etc. I know a bit of his story already.
I just want to say that if someone produces some prog-related work, it should not be considered as such de facto. Call it innovative. That's fine with me.
To reply a bit deeper about me naming only some Led Zep songs : I just didn't want to start a conference about Led Zep (it seems that a lot of people cannot stand this band here). I already had to suffer poor personal remarks so I thought that mentioning a few was sufficient to illustrate what I wanted to say. I will outline my deeper opinions while reviewing their entire catalogue like I did already for ten bands on this site. My 300th review will be dedicated to their untitled album (some called it Led Zep IV). So far, I have reached 265. So, give me another ten days to do so.
About the owners and collaborators : I would not dare to say they know nothing about the matter. I just mentioned that Led Zep has never been considered prog-related by the thousnad of the rock-press specialist and the millions of fans while they were at the peak of their career (which ended on the 24th September 1980). As far as I have read, lots of people were against their inclusion.
If I have had to decide about it, I would certainly not have pushed for their inclusion. That's all. Same would have applied to Placebo for instance (but the list does not stop here).
Since these bands are included, let's aknowledge this and not argue virulently about it.
Sorry Andu, to have been so long (both in the lenghty & late reply). I do not come on the forum very often (my reviewing eats an incredible part of my time).
It's now just over 2 AM, Belgian time. So, bed-time now !
Cheers. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 14 2007 at 21:57
|
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.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: February 14 2007 at 22:38
|
I define Prog as "Rock that demonstrates superior intelligence," and the site's definition is basically that in more words. To me, Led Zeppelin didn't make any music any "smarter" than any other classic rock band. For that matter, neither did Queen; it was all pop with bombast, and bombast does not prog make. -------------   |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 14 2007 at 22:43
On the contrary, despite their 'heavy metal bad boys' reputation, Led Zeppelin not only made intelligent rock music, they were clearly a smart group of guys showing taste and elegance in a normally juvenile genre. Queen as well, highly intelligent people doing smart rock with panache. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 15 2007 at 00:27
| As much as I like Led Zep (which is quite a lot), I don't think they are prog. They were obviously influenced by prog on those tracks that other people in this thread have mentioned, and that may justify their inclusion in Prog-Related. However, we all know the reason why they were included in the site's database. Personally, I don't have any objections to them being here (I'm one of the least bigoted people in the world as far as music is concerned), but I don't really understand those people who try to prove that LZ were a full-fledged prog band. |
Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: February 15 2007 at 11:00
|
I love Zep. I mean they really are one of my favourite bands. But I don't consider them prog. This site has an identity crisis! On one hand we have the likes of Led Zep, Beatles, and various other fine bands included, on the other hand you have some individual works of music that are very definitely prog related, but are not included, because with this site it's either all or nothing - either the artiste's entire canon is included, warts and all, or there's nothing. Examples of music that can justifiably be called "progressive" but which are not featured here:
Flaming Lips - Yoshimi, Soft Bullett In, Mystic;
Bowie - Low, Heroes;
Keith Jarrett- Survivors Suite
...but certainly no-one would call Bowie or Jarret a "progressive" artist. Or would they?
If you PA guys are going to include various artistes then you need a bit more sophistication. John McLaughlin (my hero!) is included but many of his works are just "straight" jazz - After the Rain? Time Remembered? Prog?? I don't think so.
Yes OK I am of the opinion that some Zep tracks could be considered "progressive"...but if we have to apply labels then really, Zep is just a sophisticated blues based band.
And if I hear you cry it's wrong to apply labels to music - to categorise it - then what the heck are you doing maintaining a site "dedicated" to one particular form of music, "prog"??!!
D'oh!
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 15 2007 at 11:11
|
@ Phil: Excuse me, can I ask you who you are referring to as 'you PA guys'? The Admins and Collaborators, the owners, both or neither? Personally, I am both part of the Admin team and leader of a specialist genre team, but I can't make decisions as regards adding, subtracting or changing subgenres, not including complete discographies, or refusing the addition of artists if the owners wish them to be here. Therefore, I'd be grateful if for once users took their complaints to those who are responsible for creating this site, avoiding general accusations like the ones thrown in the above post. *end of rant* |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 15 2007 at 11:16
Reason-based debates are the "life" of the forums so please join or start as many as you can, because your posts are always solid and insightful. However I wouldn't want you to stop or slow down reviewing, you're doing a great job! Nothing more to add about Zeppelin I guess, we're all in the phase where we rather speak to the walls than accept someone else's opinions. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: February 15 2007 at 11:18
|
Though I love them, they are not prog. They had a certain influence in the shaping of prog though, hence the proto-prog label, with which I agree. ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: Guzzman
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:33
This has been discussed before and still the answer is: No, they're not Prog, some of their material had Proggish elements, they were an influential band, they discovered new musical land, they were fantastic. They shouldn't be in the Archives, which is something that has to be said about other bands, Queen among them IMHO. As long as there's the ProgArchives this question will be brought up again and again.   Please stop it!I LOVE LED ZEPPELIN! ------------- "We've got to get in to get out" |
Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:36
|
no, they aren't... ------------- Music has always been a matter of energy to me. On some nights I believe that a car with the needle on empty can run 50 more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Hunter S Thompson |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:42
|
^ what he said. But LZ IV is a prog-related album.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:47
I'm looking forward for your review ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:50
Good idea ... I haven't written a review here in quite a while. But when I find some time, shouldn't I rather review a prog album? The agony of choice!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 13:56
No, I think reviewing proto and related is useful because it makes you think about what/how/why/where to, etc., is prog and that makes your analytic instruments sharper. 
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 15:02
|
No, no way, they are so not! ------------- Bassists are deadly 
|
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: February 16 2007 at 17:45
Rather harshly spoken but true. When I first came here I was bound with the ignorance of this question. Now that I am wiser in the ways of all prog I wish I could take back many of my dumber, less "knowing" posts...but I cant'... Haha...my first thread on arriving I think was something a bit like this. I thought I was smart 
The truth is, I was a dumbass, and continue to be a dumbass, but either way--I don't support Led Zeppelin being classified as prog. Especially after reading a bio on them, and comparing it to a bio on Pink Floyd... One was obviously prog, the other was not. In the Pink Floyd bio, the words "Progressive Rock" as a classification was brought up many times, and also as in reference to peers (mostly Soft Machine). In the Zep book, I don't think the term was ever used in a memorable way to describe their music. All of this still boils down to opinion...but, if you read up on your common progressive tags, Zep wasn't a pretentious, theater-heavy, classical-music ridden, technically wowing, overblown concept album band...and that's what prog is all about!!!
...right? (kidding.) Anyways, Zep was a blues rock band that later found themselves experimenting with folk music which led to the evolution of some pretty decent prog-like tracks--but at their core...they had nothing to do with the scene and miss the ties that the other bands of the time have to the genre. Had Bonham lived and the band continued to produce albums then perhaps, yes, they could be considered. But with their output... Definately Proto-prog, and barely that. Chairs! (pardon, I'm in a goofy mood today.) ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: March 24 2007 at 01:10
| Not, in general; although Physical Graffiti has some prog moments. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: March 25 2007 at 00:06
|
They were originally part of the late 60s early 70s group of acts that were described as progressive because of their pushing the boundaries of what rock n roll was. Once the prog groups like Yes & Genesis started gaining attention, the term no longer meant the same. So Led Zep then became non-prog. A result that greatly affected their musical success there after - NOT !
|
Posted By: Draconean
Date Posted: March 26 2007 at 12:32
|
No.
But they were a fantastic band and immensely influential. ------------- I'm running still, I shall until, one day I hope that I'll arrive |
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: April 22 2007 at 19:21
|
I have not been on the forum for quite a long while (illness, travel and reviewing).
I could extensively detail my feelings about Led Zep in my reviews. Since some members thought that I did not need to speak as I did about some songs of them, I have detailed almost each of them and my meaning has not changed for an inch : on the contrary. If add up all their discography, there MIGHT be five or six songs that are vaguely prog related. And yes, "Stairway" IS plagiatory for its whole introduction (but still it is a great song). And no, the Untitled album (their fourth one) is not prog by any means.
Still, it is one of my "beloved" band (out of 127).
Cheers. ------------- ZowieZiggy |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: April 23 2007 at 13:10
Hard to define "superior intelligence", so I'll (surprisingly for me) let that one go. But saying that BOMBAST DOES NOT PROG MAKE ! How dare you insult Rush, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Tull, Ange, DT, et al. Bombast & pretention are two very important ingredients in your stereotypical prog. And I like my prog in stereo . P.S. Finegan says woof > his mom's coming in from Dalmatia, & his dad's due back soon from Labrador. |