Led Zeppelin

Could you people grow up a little and stop acting so inconsiderate?  Led Zeppelin are about as far from a prog band as you can get....  If you are fan of Led Zep... then go hang out on their website.... they've got a great forum...

 

 

I think that wen you guyz put all thes e new bands to ad lists then it gets confusing for new proggers like me and stuff cuz then we really dont know wat it is to be prog. like i now know that phil collins isnt prog cuz you cabn just tell and i think zepelin (i heard some stuff0 isnt prog so stop trying to add to much, cuz it makes it harder for young proggers l;ike me to know what it is. just cuz zeplin is a bit like other prog stuff doesnt make them totaly so we shoud make this site ofr more just prog, and then we woud have a strong obvios line to not cross.

thats what i think

I agree with you Arcer. It just seems to me that Zep is way more prog than many of the new additions, otherwise I never would have bothered. The idea of expanding the site with a sub group is good.

Here's a previous post, on another Zeppelin topic I found.

penguindf12 wrote: Kinda, kinda not. Led Zep are hard rock, with some progressive leanings, not unlike Eddie Van Halen or Queen. But not full-on prog, because just listening to them you can tell. The only real proggish recording they did was "IV". But if I had my way, we'd include them in this side under the title "hard prog rock" along with Rush, Van Halen, and Queen (and for you purists we'd also have them under "Alternative Prog" so old proggers know they aren't "true" prog or whatever -- including them on this side would be a boon, really. If some Zeppelin fan ignorant of prog stumbles across this site and sees Led Zeppelin on it, they might say "hm, prog? maybe I should look into it" and BANG! we have a possible convert)

i've made this comment in another thread but including Led Zeppelin would be to rewrite musical history.

In their time they were never regarded as a progressive rock band but were termed 'heavy blues'.

The only song which Zeppelin ever openly admitted to being prog-influenced was 'The Song Remains The Same' which Jimmy knowingly constructed as an excercise in prog rock-ism.

I adore Zeppelin, have done since I first heard them, in 1979 when I was 13, I have everything they recorded inncluding box sets, blah blah blah but they were not then prog, nor will they ever be.

In fact, in a bid to halt all these tiresome polls, here's my earlier post:

With reference to my earlier post about the change in demographics on the site and the possible need to create a sub-forum for 'bands related to prog'.

There are now threads on the main discussion board for Chicken Shack, Artcane, Quatermass, Queen (regarding Queen II) and a query about Autograph's inlcusion on the site. That's just on page one of the main discussions area.

On page two we get Man, Horslips, Wishbone Ash and a few others.

We've had endless, pointless discussions about ELO, Led Zeppelin etc etc etc.

The sheer proliferation of threads suggesting bands for the site is proof positive to me that an awful lot of member do not have an inkling of even what the 'classic' early 70s definition of progressive rock is.

Even if you broaden the scope of the definition and the site's ability to induct marginal bands - there is simply no way on God's green earth that a case can be made for Zeppelin, ELO, 10cc, Roxy Music etc etc.

If 'progressive rock' as a tag was applied largely by music journalists to try and encompass a loose musical movement of the late 60s then it was a tag (however imperfect) that was never, ever applied (as far as I know) to any of the above groups. Zepp were classed as a 'heavy blues band' ELO as pure pop, 10cc likewise, Roxy as more akin to Bowie and Lou Reed and glam than prog rock.

I am no diehard adherent to the flat-earth notion that any change must be resisted but like, I think it was Fitz, it is just not correct to trawl back through time and adjust the parameters to suit personal taste. I adore Zep and have done since I was a teenager, but they were never progressive rock and they won't suddenly become so because someone constantly bleats for their inclusion.

I applauded the inclusion of Radiohead because I believe they fulfill the criteria of being a prog rock band. I have no objection to objectively viewing a modern band's career (Talk Talk, David Sylvian, Radiohead) and deciding that their allegiances, influences, output and progress lead to the conclusion that here's a modern prog band. That's fine. And merited.

Merited because few mainstream music journalists use the term prog rock these days, it's simply fallen out of fashion. Instead they label what we might see as prog tendencies as something else - there are hundreds of ridiculous catch-alls that are applied.

But while those sort of judgment calls are necessary with modern music (to which the term prog is hardly ever applied in the music media - though, strangely, it consistently has been to Radiohead) it is the silliest kind of cultural relativism to stretch back through time and say 10cc are prog.

Just because someone listens to Genesis and 10cc and sees sonic paralells in terms of production values, keyboard sounds of the 70s etc does not mean that band is suddenly prog. They were not then, and they are not now.

Broaden the definition by all means, but do not rewrite popular music history.

When entire albums can be considered progressive, then the band is prog. Honestly, Autograph has been added.

Sorry for not puting this in the bands to add thing. Just seems more important than bands like Autograph!!