Put Led Zeppelin on the archives!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9596
Printed Date: November 29 2024 at 17:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Put Led Zeppelin on the archives!
Posted By: The Wizard
Subject: Put Led Zeppelin on the archives!
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:18
| Know that we have queen we can have led zeppelin. They had some very progressive songs and albums. Listen to Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffitti, In Through the Out Door and you will see what I meen. There are tons of influences of world music on all there albums, and fell they are mopre progressive than queen. John Paul Jones is also a very skilled keyboardest that dosn't get the attention he deserves. I say we add Zep once and for all. |
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:20
|
No.......don't! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: spong751
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:20
| I agree they are one of my favorite bands and i would like to see them on this website |
Posted By: DavidInsabella
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:22
|
SHUT UP!!! And no, Led Zeppelin is not more progressive than Queen. Queen is pushing in, Led Zeppelin is tearing it! ------------- Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be. 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:23
|
We might introduce a special category for bands that are "almost" prog ... in the meantime: No, they shouldn't be added. What's their Queen II ... Led Zeppelin III? Led Zeppelin IV? Presence? Houses of the Holy? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Rael
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:23
|
In my opinion neither queen nor LZ should be ain the archives. There isa also much more bands that should be thrown away IMO.
------------- I am a lonely man, my solitude is true, my eyes have borne stark witness and now my nights are numbered, too. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:23
|
Lucky for us your favourite band is not Abba! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
spong751 wrote:Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:26
I consider there 'Queen II' to be there 1973 masterpiece Houses of the Holy. The Rain Song and No Quarter are certainly progressive. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:27
|
What's wrong with ABBA? Very progressive band with great songwriting and amazing arrangements. I have all Led Zep's albums, and there is a big difference between progressive and Progressive Rock. LZ have never produced a prog album, IMO. Not even a proper prog track - and yes, I do know "No Quarter". I don't think any bands should be evicted - if they're here, they're here for a reason. Even if some stretch the term a bit... It's all in the mix, as they say. |
Posted By: The Walrus
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:29
|
Led Zeppelin is very good, one of my favorite bands too and maybe some of Led Zep's songs are a little bit proggy, but I don't think they are prog. All good bands isn't prog and vice versa. ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:30
|
Do you know Steve Vai - Bangkok and the story behind it? Abba were indeed good songwriters ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:31
|
What about The Crudge? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: walrus
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:33
|
No way!!! ------------- you and whose army? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:34
Actually Jeff Beck should be here - Jazz-Fusion par excellence. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:38
| As much as I love Led Zep, I don't think we should add them. They have too many blues influences to be truly prog, and this site is getting crowded as it is. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:41
| *sighs* |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 13:47
|
Who's got the guts to put it there? |
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:21
|
To say that abba is more progressive than zep like saying that Beach Boys are heavier than balck sabbath |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:21
|
Led Zep won't be accepted , Jeff Beck - yes ! ABBA - NO!
------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:24
The bloody Beatles!!!  Max that's why Sgt Pepper was....................  |
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:31
|
I was actually thinking about requesting Jeff Beck's inclusion a few days ago, but decided not to. Look's like you guys beat me to it! (I would be happy to do a biography and all the necessary things, too) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 14:32
Quit banging on mailto:M@X - M@X and go write some reviews.
------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:13
| Led Zeppelin is 95% basic blues stuff. |
Posted By: MustShaveBeard
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:24
Oh great, look at all the exciting possibilities putting Queen on the archives has brought! ------------- Your life or your lupins!!! |
Posted By: Hemispheres
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:36
GET A LIFE THERES MORE TO LIFE THEN ARGUING ABOUT WETHER QUEEN OR ZEPPELIN SHOULD BE ON THIS WEBSITE (Jumping Jesus) ------------- [IMG]http://www.wheresthatfrom.com/avatars/miguelsanchez.gif">[IMG]http://www.rockphiles.com/all_images/Act_Images/TheMothersOfInvention/mothers300.jpg"> |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:37
|
Ok Garion81 , i'll continue to listen to ...
while doing some reviews BOSS
PS : Anyone interested in listening to the song "7th Son of the 7th Son" and appreciate this great Prog Metal Epic . I know Philippe wants to .. You can download it here
------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:47
|
No there isn't, this is life! Ok so if someone suggests AC/DC to go on the Archives, no one argue OK everyone? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:51
| While it's true that Zeppelin are a bit too blues-based to be called prog, it's also true that their later albums were more and more influenced by progressive rock. Of course No Quarter is the first example that comes to mind, but I'd also mention Kashmir and Achilles' Last Stand. Again, as I said earlier on in the Deep Purple thread, if Queen have been included, then why not Zeppelin? After all, they are one of the most influential bands in the history of rock, and one that was always capable of evolving. |
Posted By: Fragile
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 15:56
Zeppelin are a great rock band but are no prog band.What is wrong wiith people on this site??????? Can't they differentiate between hard rock/metal/ basic rock and popular music Some of the music being forwarded on here in recent months is beyond a joke.What next T-Rex they had some proggy moments didn't they?
|
Posted By: MANTICORE
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:08
|
the beatles arrived at their progressive degree in the album sgts. Pepper from in ahead.
zeppelin has very good songs through his there albunes I-II-II will be very difficult that they add these groups read topic of M@X. already.? -------------  |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:21
|
It's not about influence, or there would be tons of bands that sound like Gentle Giant. Led Zeppelin evolved one single style, and they were progressive within that style. The style was based on the blues, with an occasional injection of folk, and involved standard song structures with (often extended) instrumental sections. The music was largely based on riffs repeated verbatim, not developing, and the instrumental sections were comprised almost solely of improvisation around one or two riffs. Rythmically, the music tends to be in straight 4 time, or at the very least, will maintain a constant beat with driving fills that you can headbang to. The lyrical matter is usually relatively down to earth, and includes sexual love as part of its subject matter fairly requently.
Prog rock evolves many different styles - adopting and discarding where necessary, but continuosly mixing into the band's personal hallmarks. The essential style of Prog was originally based on the heavier side of blues and psychedelia, but had pretensions of grandeur outside of the mainstream rock arena reflected by use of "higher" musical styles, such as "classical" and jazz. The lyrical matter is usually fantastical or mystical, and rarely includes sexual love as part of its subject matter, although the more philosophical aspects do crop up. Rhythmically, it can be all over the shop. The rules are there are no rules. The music was riff-based to a degree, but often with contrapuntal bass and keyboards, and tended to avoid exact repetition, preferring to build a style, sometimes adding layers of different textures. The instrumental sections were carefully constructed so that the musicians could improvise around them live, but through-composed on the whole so that the thematic material of the song was developed further through use of devices such as contrasting sections.
There are essentially two different types of music. Music created for people to sing or dance to, and music created for people to sit and wonder at. Folk music and art music. Led Zeppelin are closer to folk than art. There is precious little composition in their music, wonderful though it may be. Queen are closer to art than folk, in their early albums. There is much evidence of composition and attention to detail, even if much of it is through studio trickery.
Yes, the lines blur over. This is just a theory - agree or disagree at will - but Progressive Rock is a form of Art Music, and the Blues are a form of Folk. |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:26
|
Zeppelin is not prog. Zeppelin was "progressive" rock, not "progressive rock." It was pushed with Queen, let's not push it further.
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:33
Actually mailto:M@X - M@X that was for Tony R and his new elevated positon here.
-------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:35
Tony R is a great collaborator !!!  ------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:36
|
Anyone downloaded my Maiden song ?
By the way , tonite I am going to a Tribute to Maiden Show @ l'Agora de Québec !!!
------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:37
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:40
You might need some of those earplugs you hand out to Collaborators for when we review Dream Theater albums:
Your own special brand
|
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 16:44
|
Oh this is so exciting....I say...Add Led Zeppelin and while you are at it......you should add Deep Purple too......hee hee... I still stand firm in my belief that music must overide band....if Zeppelin wrote a progressive song or album, and if this is a site about progressive music, then that album should be on the site.....I've said it once I'll say it again, and I know you guys are probably getting sick and tired of seeing this....BUT.....Long Live Progressive Music, and Down with the ideology of Progressive Bands. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 17:23
No need to download, I know it well. And before you go out, fix my posting review problem!
OK go out then! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 18:34
What do you want him to do,send you for lessons? |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 04 2005 at 18:39
I've had a problem posting a Works review! Won't let me! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 07:12
| Yeah, I had a similar problem trying to post a review for 'Tarkus'; a while back I attempted to post one and it said I already had, when I hadn't. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 05 2005 at 07:23
|
Yes it says I wrote a review already. I may have done, but I certainly don't remember! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: August 06 2005 at 03:33
|
Led Zeppelin is my favorite band in all of music.And while they do have some proggy moments,they were never consistently progressive on any of their albums,and should not be on this site.A great blues/hard rock band,one of the precursors and a huge influence on metal,but not prog. -------------  |
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: August 11 2005 at 22:53
|
------------- 
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: Throgh
Date Posted: August 12 2005 at 04:45
Queen, LZ who cares? IMHO, if you
like MUSIC, it doesn't matter how you name it. Blues, Prog, metal, jazz
or disco- enjoy it . I know - prog, jazz etc is conceptual kind
of music, but sometimes you should rest of it. Listening RAmones "It's
Alive" or Motorhead "Aces of Spades" is very unstressed indeed
|
Posted By: Squifurgie
Date Posted: August 14 2005 at 02:35
|
I say add Zeppelin, they weren't progressive at first, but started to
turn progressive at about Zeppelin IV, they are as progressive as Queen
in my opinion.
------------- 
|
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: August 14 2005 at 06:05
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 14 2005 at 06:09
|
I don't think Led Zeppelin is progressive rock...I haven't listened too
much in my life to Led Zeppelin,not really my favourites,but as much as
I've it is not progressive.Now I know that because Queen was added,you
want everybody else to enter and be part of this particular genre
website,but let's not push that far the limits... So,im my opinion,Led Zeppelin is not fitting into progressive rock. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Squifurgie
Date Posted: August 15 2005 at 13:45
|
but Zeppelin's later stuff is definetely progressive, like No Quarter and Achilles Last Stand, even Stairway is progressive. they should be in the archives. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Pan
Date Posted: August 16 2005 at 16:46
|
It's a matter of taste and opinion to add Led Zeppelin. But IMO there are no real arguments to exclude them if you include Queen and even Styx as I saw today. Queen was always more commercial and mainstream than Led Zeppelin. I have a problem with all that metal too in the progarchives as I wrote before. I must confess I listened only to one mp3 of Dream Theatre. But it was on top of the list here. I couldn't see or better: hear anything progressive in it. |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: August 16 2005 at 17:05
|
I would say that maybe Iron Maiden could be added to the archives. Many of their albums is quite progressive, especially Powerslave and 7th Son. ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: August 16 2005 at 18:52
|
Queen has always been more commercial and mainstream than Led Zappelin????????????????? I take issue with that comment. |
Posted By: Peter Pan
Date Posted: August 17 2005 at 02:24
I don't know how the music of both bands is heard in retrospective by young people like you. But I'm sure most people who were 18 in the year 1974 (like me) and so grew up in these times would consider Led Zeppelin as rather progressive than Queen. |
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: August 17 2005 at 11:38
When Queen first came on the scene, people immediately compared them to Led Zeppelin......at the time Led Zeppelin was the standard so to speak. They were the biggest most popular band at the time. Led Zeppelin was certainly more mainstream then Queen.....in regards to their media mass appeal. Now as far as commercialism is concerned...I suppose that is a matter of opinion as to whose music was more commercial....I am saying that Led Zeppelin started out as a good hard blues band....their early stuff is not really that progressive, however they did get more progressive as their career went on. Queen on the other hand started out very adventurous, with the albums Queen and Queen II, and continued their prog influences up to A Day At The Races. Queen were immediately bashed, and ridiculed by the music press, simply for NOT BEING LED ZEPPELIN. Queen did get more commercial as their career continued, but hey lets face it so did Zeppelin. Queen also outlasted Zeppelin, because of the death of John Bonham. If I was in the band Queen, and I was trying to make a career as a musician and I had to stare into the immense planet that was Led Zeppelin's popularity, and everything I did was compared to Zeppelin, and I had to fight to make a real identity for myself, and inspite of all that people stilled said that we were more commercial and mainstream than Zeppelin, I would be pissed off. In my humble opinion, Queen was more inventive and more creative than Led Zeppelin. I do like Zeppelin, infact I highly regard them as being a great band....But I prefer Queen. |
Posted By: dmille
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 18:34
|
Seems like unless an early 70s band is pure pop, they are gonna get recommended as progressive.
Led Zeppelin was a heavy metal band. Queen was a glam band. Now drop it, thank you. ------------- why do we never get an answer when we're knocking at the door? |
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: September 07 2005 at 13:53
Ummm.....actually, Led Zeppelin was more of a heavy BLUES BAND....and Queen certainly fit into more categories than just GLAM ROCK. In fact to my understanding glam rock was a term used to describe the flash, and flamboyant way bands presented themselves on stage. The term had little to do with the style of music. What other glam rock band do you you know that played vaudeville music and combined classical elements to rock? I certainly can't think of any...........So before we DROP IT, as you suggest, perhaps you should get your facts straight. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 07 2005 at 13:57
|
Led Zeppelin? You definately wanna ruin Prog Archives or what? If Deep Purple has a little bit of prog,LZ is DEFINATELY NOT PROG ROCK. -------------
|
Posted By: Zeppelina
Date Posted: September 08 2005 at 06:53
|
i dont think you can classify led zeppelin as a rogressive rock band. they were very innovative and liked to include various genres into their music and experiement with sounds and styles... the only progressive-ish tune i can think of right now is "no quater" ------------- all that dies dies for a reason, to make its way into the season |
Posted By: Damen
Date Posted: September 08 2005 at 10:36
|
Led Zeppelin isn't prog! Are you people braindead?? Christ! ------------- "It's amazing that we've been able to put up with each other for 35 years. Most marriages don't last that long these days." -Chris Squire |
Posted By: Wolf Spider
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 04:12
Adding LZ will be the begining of the end for this wonderful site
------------- http://www.lastfm.pl/user/tomash33 - Last.fm |
Posted By: Kubla Khan
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 10:18
|
what are the technical requirements to be a band in the prog archives?
led zeeppelin was always progressing from album to album , mixing different stiles of music like rock, country , folk , blues , funk ,ethnic ,etc. zep`s musicians are a great inspiration for many comtemporary prog musicians (like m.portnoy)
in zep`s compositionthere are key changes, polyrythm paterns and "unnusual"time signatures in many of his songs . instruments like mellotron and mandolina in many of his songs. here , i think, i this page , there is a prejudice against the rock bands. there are great albums in the career of zepellin and great songs too. I recomend "Phisical graffitti" and "the houses of the holy" to begin. in the album presence yo can find a great epic song: "achilles last stand".
...and queen..is a nice band, but i think that they are closer to POP music than prog music.
led zeppelin is a "must have" to the prog archives. |
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 15:35
In the 70s....QUEEN WAS NOT POP......make an argument if you want for the 80s....BUT IN THE 70s...QUEEN WAS NOT POP.....PERIOD! |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 15:59
|
The beginning of the end as I predicted .Letting Queen is was a bad idea as people would then use it to justify getting all sorts of other non prog bands in. Queen Led Zeppelin The Who Iron Maiden Black Sabbath YOU MUST BE JOKING
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 09 2005 at 16:22
|
I fully support the addition of Led Zeppelin to the Prog Archives site and in my opinion it will be a tribute to the true progressive rock movement, despite some cynical, venomous and mutinous statements! If you have made compositions like The battle of evermore, Stairway to heaven, The rain song, No Quarter and Kashmir, Led Zeppelin should be added immediately ... is my 'humble opinion'! |
Posted By: dmille
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 09:03
|
I guess it is easy to just re-write history and make up a genre.
You can't think of any because you don't know the full scope of the careers of Roxy Music and David Bowie. ------------- why do we never get an answer when we're knocking at the door? |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 16:11
|
Just listened to lots of Zep -- I heard a classic hard rock band, not a prog band. (Though perhaps 3-4 of their tracks could fit in OK on a prog compilation.) I vote no! Leave classic rock OUT of the Archives! (Queen don't belong here, either.) When Zep were recording, they were never regarded as a prog band -- why do some think they are now? Must everything you like be added here? Why, for goodness sake? ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 16:28
|
Maybe electric shock treatment would help? The trouble is we live in a time when people feel that whatever they want they should have. Like Peter,I am a big Led Zep fan(atic) -I was even lucky enough to see them play live,but for chrissakes,they are not a Prog Rock band. Some people around here need to grow up. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 17:35
| I have grown up (both physically as emotionally), I have seen them live in 1979 in Holland ("In through the outdoor" tour) and I don't understand why progheads oppose so cynically against an addition from Led Zeppelin to this site. For me it's almost more than obvious that they were a genuine progressive rock act! I would like to advise every 'stop-Led-Zep-to-PA-site' member to watch the superb second disc from the 2-disc live box set, what a stunning progressive rock act Led Zeppelin was in those days: Mellotron, Hohner D-6 clavinet, Fender Rhodes piano, Yamaha GX-1 synthesizer, lots of acoustic snare instruments, Gibson twin-neck, what a lush instrumentation! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 10 2005 at 18:01
|
Apparently those who opose them are more interested in their historic importance and how they were described by the press, than in the actual music they played. If you really analyze songs like The Crunge, No Quarter, The Ocean etc., you'll find many of the typical progressive elements. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 11 2005 at 04:59
|
Erik,I dont want to get into a battle with you but I would say that Led Zep have been one of my top 5 favourite bands since I was a young teenager.I have the albums,the DVDs,the interviews,the lot.I have been listening to them since I was 11 year old and I feel I am pretty knowledgeable about them.In fact I would put my encyclopedic knowledge of the band up a against anyone. I need an emoticon thet says "shakes his head in disbelief".... |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 11 2005 at 05:07
|
Is this the right room for an argument? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: September 11 2005 at 10:18
Whose re-writing history????????????? Led Zeppelin was basically a BLUES band....and with all due respect to Roxy Music and David Bowie...they WERE NOT QUEEN. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 06:50
|
No, this is the right room for an ARGUMENT. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 07:12
| I would never have battled for Led Zeppelin to add them on this site but Prog Archives have scooped a precedent by adding bands like Queen, Radiohead, Talk Talk, etc. so I support to add Led Zeppelin to this site because of their progressive periode in the Seventies. Of course a band is not progressive because of only lush instrumentation or/and the use of vintage keyboards but in my opinion Led Zeppelin have written some excellent progrock compositions, then my simple question is: why Queen or Radiohead and not Led Zeppelin? |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 07:30
|
That is like asking a judge why he has sent you down for twenty years for murder when the last murderer only got 16 years! Queen are not a Prog Rock band and neither are Zep or Purple. Whilst I cant stand them myself,I would say that Radiohead are very much a Prog Rock band. |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 13:06
How about progressive hard rock?, it's a term i have seen prog fans use before so bands like Led Zeppelin wouldnt be put into the same category as "really prog" bands like ELP and Gentle Giant, it could be used for bands like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, David Bowie, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix and The Who, all artists with progressive elements but don't really fall under any other prog catagory, think about it, what other classification could Zeppelin fall under?, Symphonic Prog?
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 13:48
|
Hello Tony. Were is that R from, perhaps reverend? I won't be surprised if I look at your weird comparison with murder and my explanation about the addition of Led Zeppelin...I think we have a "communication breakdown"?! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 14:37
I'd say Art Rock ... or rather "Almost Art Rock". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Kubla Khan
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 15:37
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHITOUT `ZEPPELIN MANY OF OUR BELOVED PROG BANDS MAY NEVER HAVE BORN. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 18:22
I was comparing the proposed addition of Led Zep to that of Queen; "Two wrongs dont make a right" etc, It was wrong to add Queen and it would be equally wrong to add Zep. You can mock my laboured metaphor all you want but you are equally foolish if you think Led Zep are a prog band. And no,I dont even believe it is OK to suggest them,just to "test the water" Enough of this buffonery. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 18:38
I'm trying to think of a prog band that wouldn't exist without Zep!............................
.............no, I can't think of any!..................Rush maybe?.........Nah! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Kubla Khan
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 21:48
|
snow dog : the first albums of rush sound like zeppelin.... |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 21:55
|
So....a band that made,according to you,3 progressive songs out of 8 studio albums deserves inclusion on a progressive rock website? BS ------------- |
Posted By: Damen
Date Posted: September 12 2005 at 23:26
|
Then they got Neil Peart and took a complete 180, their first album wasn't prog. ------------- "It's amazing that we've been able to put up with each other for 35 years. Most marriages don't last that long these days." -Chris Squire |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 03:50
Actually I always thought about Led Zeppelin as a progressive band, at least in the early 90's when I first got into Dream Theater and didn't know about the 70's prog bands except Pink Floyd. I listened to Dream Theater and thought "very nice - they're taking the signature changes and weird song structure concepts of Led Zeppelin one step further". Surely I lacked context back then, but there's a progressive element in Led Zep that Deep Purple are missing, so they're definitively PROG RELATED. And let us not forget Mike Portnoy's secret Project "Hammer" (or something like that) who play Led Zeppelin songs just like Yellow Matter Custard play Beatles songs. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 04:22
All this is highly dubious and are you saying that Portnoy only plays prog stuff? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 04:26
|
Yes, the first album has some basic Zep influences, and then they developed into a prog band. But at best they onle sounded like "Heavy Rock" Zep, not so called "Prog" Zep! I think therefore Rush could easily have existed without them. You mentioned "many" bands, who else you got? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 05:02
|
^ Snow Dog: I didn't say that Led Zeppelin are prog at all ... but songs like The Crunge are, undoubtedly, progressive.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 08:50
MP's Zeppelin cover band was called Kashmir ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 08:54
|
^ Maybe we're both wrong: http://www.dreamtheater.net/archive_portnoy.php?y=2003#hognyc - http://www.dreamtheater.net/archive_portnoy.php?y=2003#hogny c Apparently the band I'm referring to is called "Hammer of the Gods". Maybe Kashmir was an earlier name or a completely different project? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 10:23
Whatever the name, Portnoy is allowed to play non prog music too! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 10:26
Sorry Mike,my mistake.I could have sworn his Zeppelin cover band was called Kashmir. I stand corrected ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 10:31
|
TheProgtologist: no problem, "hammer" was not completely correct either. Snow Dog: Of course Portnoy also plays non prog - I just mentioned his connection to Led Zeppelin as a further sign that Led Zeppelin are related to prog. They influenced a lot of Prog Metal bands, and some of their songs show signs of prog. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:17
Yes Mike,but they weren't consistently progressive.They weren't and aren't a prog band.I think for a band to be added to this site they should have a firm body of progressive work,not just a few songs scattered over the course of 8 studio albums. And please don't throw Queen at me,that addition was BS and the addition of Deep Purple is BS too. I know members of these bands inspired some prog musicians,but I bet if you took 100 metal musicians and 100 prog musicians and asked them to cite influences that way more of the metalheads would cite Zep as an influence. ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:23
|
I guess I'm a little more lenient than you - I still support Queen because of Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack. But I know what you mean. I would not have added Queen, it's simply not necessary to have them in the archives. BTW: According to one of our collaborators Deep Purple are more progressive than Devin Townsend ... it's really difficult to talk about specific bands being prog or not when the persons involved in the discussion have that different opinions on prog as a whole. I mean, there really isn't any basis for a meaningful discussion. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:26
I understand Mike,and it might seem like I am trying to argue with you,but I'm not,my friend. I just think some of the bands people want included on a prog website are ridiculous Perfect example: Soundgarden......WTF ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:28
|
Do you know Down on the Upside? It's a pretty cool album, and many of the songs are quite complex. IMO it's their best album. I can understand why someone might think it's prog ... but as I said earlier in this thread - it's not enough. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:33
|
Oh yeah,I love Soundgarden. Badmotorfinger,Superunknown,Down on the Upside are GREAT albums. Chris Cornell has a vocal range that most singers would kill for. Just not prog,even though I agree with you that DotU is a complex album. Personally my favorite is Badmotorfinger. ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 13 2005 at 13:37
|
Yes, Badmotorfinger is cool. Rusty Cage was my first contact with soundgarden (saw the video on MTV). It's too bad that Chris didn't continue what he started with Euphoria Morning and founded Audioslave instead ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|