Led Zep!!

To clarify, M@x has confirmed the may be added, he's not adding them.

The reason why I don't have plans to make a Led Zep bio in short time (if I am allowed to do this) is because I prefer to write about symphonic prog bands that deserve it to be mentioned or to be added so in fact I agree with you Jimbo. I also agree that we are way too much discussing on the Forum instead of writing or making progress with developments on Prog Archives. Honestly, Andu his proposal is not a bad one  ...

erik neuteboom wrote: Well Jimbo, if I look at the Prog Archives homepage the last weeks, it's flooded by Iron Maiden reviews and many other prog-related, prog-folk and Art-rock bands, it seems that many reviewers are more pleased to write about these bands ... and you can expect a huge Led Zep flood within a few weeks

Yes, this is true, but I don't see your point... We should let these bands in because they're well known and prog fans like them?

Also, you may not think so yourself, but everytime we add another hugely popular supposedly "prog-related" group to the archives we're drifting away from our main goal IMO -- which should be to give information about the lesser known prog bands in the archives, not to praise well known "prog-related" albums that every music enthusiast already knows.  We spend too much time discussing possible prog-related additions (roughly half of the posts in the Suggest New Bands/Artists section seem to be about prog-related additions), and not nearly enough time discussing unknown, real prog bands. This is why your symphonic prog thread is excellent, Erik!

It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the band-addition policy here. I almost laughed when I saw someone suggesting Faith No More to be added here. After thinking about it for a while, it started to make just as much sense as this Zep thing though. The bar is becoming so low that eventually we will have Sabbath, Cream, The Who, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Metallica, David Bowie here -- not a big concern for me, but calling this progarchives after that might be a bit cumbersome.

What do we actually gain by adding these bands to the archives? Almost all members here have already heard them, so it isn't about giving exposure to these groups -- I have never met a prog fan who hasn't heard Led Zep f. ex. As you already stated, the frontpage will be even more flooded with albums not done by prog bands. Is this a good thing on a prog site? Everytime a Led Zep review appears on the homepage, it will push a good, genuine prog album out of the frontpage into the archives. It might take weeks before someone opens that page again.

Oh well.. I know that this is what M@X wants and it will not change my life in any way, but I honestly think we need to set our priorities straight, and not bother with prog-related additions for a while.

Rant over, thanks for listening!

Cygnus X-2 wrote: I say nay. I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, but I would never in a blink of an eye consider them prog related. Sure they've had their moments here and there, but the "if group A is here, then why not group B?" argument is getting terribly dire at this point and an addition like this would only lead to the calling of even less prog related groups. I mean, we could make a case for Sabbath because Rick Wakeman was on one of their albums! We shouldn't really be focusing on Prog Related groups, anyway. Look at the title of this website, progarchives, we should really be concerned with Progressive Rock and not groups that aren't really even progressive at all. I could make a strong case for The Who to be on this site, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's best for me to get into a controversial addition solely because we seem to focus too much these days on groups that aren't really progressive at all and not new, exciting, unknown groups that deserve more right of inclusion than others. The Iron Maiden addition is more tolerable than others because Maiden do (IMO) have some progressive tinges in their material (tell me Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't prog), but you have to really ask yourself, are Led Zeppelin really even that progressive? Not really, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinions of many other members. You could make an argument for John Paul Jones as a solo artist to be here, though, as his solo material is leaps and bounds more progressive than Led Zeppelin ever was. Let's focus our efforts on prog groups, people, not groups that aren't prog (or should be in prog related).

I agree with this 100 % ..



Edited by Jimbo - October 19 2006 at 06:54

I say nay. I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, but I would never in a blink of an eye consider them prog related. Sure they've had their moments here and there, but the "if group A is here, then why not group B?" argument is getting terribly dire at this point and an addition like this would only lead to the calling of even less prog related groups. I mean, we could make a case for Sabbath because Rick Wakeman was on one of their albums!

We shouldn't really be focusing on Prog Related groups, anyway. Look at the title of this website, progarchives, we should really be concerned with Progressive Rock and not groups that aren't really even progressive at all. I could make a strong case for The Who to be on this site, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's best for me to get into a controversial addition solely because we seem to focus too much these days on groups that aren't really progressive at all and not new, exciting, unknown groups that deserve more right of inclusion than others.

The Iron Maiden addition is more tolerable than others because Maiden do (IMO) have some progressive tinges in their material (tell me Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't prog), but you have to really ask yourself, are Led Zeppelin really even that progressive? Not really, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinions of many other members.

You could make an argument for John Paul Jones as a solo artist to be here, though, as his solo material is leaps and bounds more progressive than Led Zeppelin ever was.

Let's focus our efforts on prog groups, people, not groups that aren't prog (or should be in prog related).

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: Weren't they rejected already?  I wouldn't need them here.   Should the list of rejected bands be nailed on the top of this zone?

Seems that list is not worth the screen its emitting from!

We're awaiting a decision on LZ from M@x.

personally i'd love to see LZ on PA....... but only with everybody's full support ! really too controversial at the moment.

I have a personal vendetta to keep Led Zeppelin out of the archives

Uther wrote: salmacis wrote: I have deep reservations about Led Zeppelin's inclusion. 'In The Light', 'Rain Song' and 'No Quarter', maybe 'Ten Years Gone', are perhaps prog related tracks, but this is in a distinct minority. At least Deep Purple started out as basically the UK version of Vanilla Fudge , and were quite early in doing the much maligned rock orchestra project. Uriah Heep's early albums are all prog rock albums- you can't really fail to hear the prog in their first 4 albums, imho.   I do however support the 'hard/heavy prog' section alongside Sean. Not to just throw in heavy rock bands such as Zep et al. that flirted with prog occasionally, but a good resting place for the bands that are already here like Heep, Purple, Rooster, Warhorse, Quatermass et al. 'Art rock' where all these bands are is a bit of a dumping ground for bands that don't fit the clearer cut genres, imo.   Phisycal graffiti (X2), House of the holy and led zep IV can be entirely prog albums, a kind of prog that mix folk and  rock and some ethnic elements. OK, in the first 2 albums you can say " ow no mostly blues rock... no apply..." but since the third we can find something interesting.  If we read the prog definition on this site we'll be close to agree. But the worst issue i read was about Vanilla Fudge. Come on! Vanilla is better ever than DP....light years. The best album of DP is the first, well the early records