Put Led Zeppelin on the archives!

Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: M@X wrote: Anyone downloaded my Maiden song ?   By the way , tonite I am going to a Tribute to Maiden Show @ l'Agora de Québec !!!  And before you go out, fix my posting review problem! What do you want him to do,send you for lessons?

I've had a problem posting a Works review! Won't let me!

salmacis wrote: 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.

Yes it says I wrote a review already. I may have done, but I certainly don't remember!

TheProgtologist wrote: 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.

 Ditto - however I find it hard to understand how Queen has made it over many more deserving bands. Therefore, why not Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, The Who etc??? They are all of the same era and I thought (mistakenly??) heavy rocksters not progsters!

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.

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.

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.

Peter Pan wrote: 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.

Queen has always been more commercial and mainstream than Led Zappelin?????????????????

I take issue with that comment.

Peter Pan wrote: Proglover wrote: Queen has always been more commercial and mainstream than Led Zappelin????????????????? I take issue with that comment. 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.

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.

dmille wrote: 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.

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.

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"