I love this site, my most visited web domain. I love the difference of opinion and above all the progressive leniency towards " non stereotype prog bands" being included. Can someone authoritative on PA please explain how we can have ELO and Deep Purple here but no Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin?

This topic has been debated ad nauseum but I would really like someone high up on PA to explain my question above? It smacks of major contradictions. I mean it's incredible we even have early Beatles on here which is the most non prog music around!! Of course ' Double White' confirmed their overall inclusion.

Thanks in advance

ELO: extended compositions involving classical motifs off-time signatures instrumental virtuosity. These are all frequent hallmarks (although not the only hallmarks) of "prog."

Deep Purple: I probably would not categorize them as prog but I'm guessing the fact that most of the band had at least some classical training (especially Jon Lord), which popped up from time to time, and their level of instrumental skill (a bit higher than Zep's and significantly higher than Sabb's) probably nudge slightly into the realm of "prog."

Don't get me wrong: Sabbath is undoubtedly the fathers of metal and one of my all-time faves while Zep has as good of a claim as any as "the greatest rock band ever." A claim I might even support.

I've always considered Black Sabbath to be quite progressive songs, in fact the album Sabotage is pretty progressive as a whole with songs like Symptom of the Universe (also a great metal song), Megalomania, Supertzar and The Writ.  Other progressive songs in their repertoire include War Pigs, Behind the Wall of Sleep suite, A Bit of Finger suite, Hand of Doom, Wheels of Confusion, Killing Yourself to Live, A National Acrobat, Gypsy, Dirty Women, Air Dance, Heaven and Hell, Sign of the Southern Cross, among others.

Led Zepplin have also had many progressive moments, Stairway(obvious), Achilles Last Stand (great intros and outros), In My Time of Dying(in fact most of Physical Graffiti), No Quarter, In The Light, Carouselambra, but I've always associated Led Zepplin as more of a classic rock/blues/folk band. I don't know... definitely progressive moments but thats just the feeling I get when I think of Zeppelin.  I suppose the same can be said for Sabbath, in the sense that they are just a hard-rock/blues/metal band...

But I would support either band since I believe they both have a significant amount of progressive material.   

That's quite simple: it's because "progressive" is a vague, highly subjective notion, and because different people will react differently to a given piece of art.

Art and language are open to interpretation. Until we all agree as to just what "progressive" is (and we never will), it is pointless to say "this is pretty progressive," or "that song is progressive" as if you were offering convincing evidence, or stating verifiable fact. All such statements are mere unsubstantiated opinion, and the "discussion" or "argument" merely becomes a pointless exercise in contradiction.

captainbeyond wrote: Deep Purple: I probably would not categorize them as prog but I'm guessing the fact that most of the band had at least some classical training (especially Jon Lord), which popped up from time to time, and their level of instrumental skill (a bit higher than Zep's and significantly higher than Sabb's) probably nudge slightly into the realm of "prog."

Deep Purple have more instrumental skill than Led Zeppelin? Sorry my friend I would have to disagree on that count.