Put Led Zeppelin on the archives! - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Joolz

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377

Posted: July 14 2006 at 06:45

S Lang wrote:

Further to that, I'd like to see the inclusion of Led Zeppelin, Free, Bad Company, Paul Rodgers, John McLaughlin, Miles Davis - and for Heaven's sake - Jimi Hendrix, along with Cream and others resisted.

These are some your legends of Prog? Seriously? And you think PA is already a joke .....

Progressive is not a word to be hijacked for a personal interpretation, it was a MOVEMENT, not a style back then in the early '70's!

I agree, but Led Zeppelin, Free, Bad Company, Jimi Hendrix etc were not part it, however good they may have been

Many contributing to the Archives weren't even born at the time when I was having untold pleasure at listening to Progressive Music,

So was I. And the point is ..... ?

something that's resisted here.

Huh?

(Besides, Robert Plant's use of his voice alone would qualify the band!)

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: July 14 2006 at 10:20

Well, Snowdog, I would like to say this: we are invited to set up threads in order to vote for inclusions but I have never seen such a thread about The Beatles. In my opinion this is arranged by Max so the one moment we are a kind of democracy, the other moment Max is the one who orders inclusions ...

My problem is that ELO, Radiohead and Talk Talk are included but way more rock rooted bands with progressive tendencies like The Doors and Led Zeppelin are excluded, this is injustice and very inconsequent

Andrea Cortese View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4411

Posted: July 14 2006 at 11:51

erik neuteboom wrote:

Well, Snowdog, I would like to say this: we are invited to set up threads in order to vote for inclusions but I have never seen such a thread about The Beatles. In my opinion this is arranged by Max so the one moment we are a kind of democracy, the other moment Max is the one who orders inclusions ...

Erik, you're right! If a rule exists then it should be always applied.

The Doors have more than a prog tendency and Led Zeppelin are as prog as (more in my humble opinion), at least, the Queen.

Edited by Andrea Cortese - July 14 2006 at 11:54

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:06

Every such questionable addition leads to pressure to include perhaps three more non-prog artists.

Please change the site's name to "Progcetera," as I've requested, and please redefine "prog" to simply mean 'good."

(Only half joking -- "prog related" remains the most bogus, troublesome category we have here.)

Hendrix, Cream, Mountain, Grand Funk & Robin Trower next!

Seriously, why must all the music we like (especially 70s rock) eventually get listed here, on a prog site? I don't see the need!

It never ends!

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

Peter

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 31 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 9669

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:17

"progressive tendencies" WTF is THAT?

"at least as prog as the Queen" -- this is how the site gets irreparably watered-down, and twisted beyond recognition. Every non-prog addition, and re-classification of an old non prog act leads to the call for still more such.

Really folks, "progressive" just means "good," right?

*@#@! 100% of 70s rock is arguably "prog related," it would seem!

Give it a rest with the old rock bands! The prog bands from that era are ALREADY HERE! (Concentrate on adding newer acts, not re-classifying old ones!)

I saw all this coming -- hate to say "I told you so," but I (and many others as well) told you so!

Sting next!

Edited by Peter Rideout - July 14 2006 at 12:18

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

Andrea Cortese View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4411

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:23

Peter Rideout wrote:

Every such questionable addition leads to pressure to include perhaps three more non-prog artists.

Please change the site's name to "Progcetera," as I've requested, and please redefine "prog" to simply mean 'good."

(Only half joking -- "prog related" remains the most bogus, troublesome category we have here.)

Hendrix, Cream, Mountain, Grand Funk & Robin Trower next!

Seriously, why must all the music we like (especially 70s rock) eventually get listed here, on a prog site? I don't see the need!

It never ends!

I don't want to disagree with you Peter, your statements are rational but:

why the music that someone likes IS currently listed in the site, even if it is by the most part considered non prog at all?

That's the main problem. INCONSINTENCY of the rules, sometimes applied and sometimes not. That's hardly can be accepted.

That said, I disagree with the people that say The Doors and Led Zeppelin have nothing to do with prog.

Edited by Andrea Cortese - July 14 2006 at 12:24

Trickster F. View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:24

Peter Rideout wrote:

Sting next!

The Police are at least as progressive as The Beatles! They have prog tendencies too.

-- Ivan

sig

Andrea Cortese View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4411

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:26

BTW, today I've bought:

NutterAlert View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 07 2005
Location: In transition
Status: Offline
Points: 2808

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:27

Yep, The Police guitarist worked with Kevin Ayers and was a brief member of soft machine.

Edited by NutterAlert - July 14 2006 at 12:27

Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005

Andrea Cortese View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4411

Posted: July 14 2006 at 12:30

Ahhh, Irony, dulcissima soror mea... (sweetest sister of mine)

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: July 14 2006 at 13:18

Erik wrote:

Well, Snowdog, I would like to say this: we are invited to set up threads in order to vote for inclusions but I have never seen such a thread about The Beatles.

Well Erik, some Collaborators add bands everyday without asking anybody and what is worst, without informing anybody, a well known member adds New Age bands to Symphonic very often and at the end we have to deal with it.

I believe we can be flexible, but if teams exist, the least we can do is ask the team in charge for an inclusion, in the Symphonic Team for example, a tedious band by band work in alphabetical order is being done just to find we have to check it from the start again because we have not been adviced and a New Age, AOR or Folk band has been added to Symphonic without even telling any of us.

In my opinion this is arranged by Max so the one moment we are a kind of democracy, the other moment Max is the one who orders inclusions ...

Well, he owns the site, if I own a site I might have some extra prerrogatives than the other members, that's the least we can accept when we are using the site for free, they took the whole risk and we enjoy it.

ELO was added because a Collaborator ignored the polls and went too far, we know the rules, once a band is here we don't remove it.

Talk Talk and Radiohead, well I don't know why were they included but a tleast in the case of Radiohead there is a good percentage of members who believe they are Prog and IO are at.

Now I agree with The Doors, there's a certain prejudice against USA Psychedelia, every Psyche British band is added automaticly but The Doors, Sweet**ter and Santana keep waiting (Well Sweet**ter passed the poll even when most of the people don't know them).

About Led Zeppelin, despite how much I like them, I'm not 100% sure.

Iván

Trickster F. View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308

Posted: July 14 2006 at 13:26

Andrea Cortese wrote:

BTW, today I've bought:

That's the only Nektar album I've heard, it's great!

-- Ivan

sig

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: July 14 2006 at 13:43

Eric, Ivan,

Perhaps the polls are too ambiguous. The Beatles were not added because they were prog, but because of the major influence they had on prog. Thus they are categorised as proto-prog, a non-prog category.

Perhaps polls for bands such as The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden etc. should include an explicit statement that they are not being proposed as prog bands, but for addition in a non-prog category such as prog related or proto-prog. We are of course still reliant on those who vote in the polls recognising this, and not voting on the basis of whether such bands are prog.

Alternatively, and admittedly more controversially, do we perhaps need a small panel of collaborators who fully understand* the concept of proto-prog and prog-related (and the fact that these categories implicitly mean such bands are not prog), and who are comfortable with such a concept?

Those collaborators would then have the sole responsibility for approving the admission of bands to these categories.

(*I don't mean that to sound in any way derogatory to anyone, my apologies if it might come across that way)

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: July 14 2006 at 16:41

Easy Livin wrote:

Eric, Ivan,

I have absolutely no problem with The Beatles, I didn't agreed in the poll. but thinking it over and over I realized that at least for Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road, they deserve to be here.

But even if we didn't agree, M@X and Prog Lucky are entitled to add whatever band they want IMO, they created the site from nothing, so they have the full right to decide about most issues.

Lets see band by band:

The Doors: They are pure USA Psychedelia, if we have Elmer Gantry's Velvet Opera and a whole bunch of Brittish Psyche bands (By own right), why shouldn't be USA Psyche bands also be added? Both are part of the same movement.
Led Zeppelin: I'm sure they're at least Proto Metal, but Proto Prog? I don't think so neither Proto Prog Metal. They are an excellent band that's a fact but IMO they shouldn't be added as Prog.
Iron Maiden: I surely believe they are Prog Metal or at least Proto Progg Metal and IMO much more imaginative than many other PM bands.

I believe it's more a job for all the collaborators than a team work, Prog Related is too wide and vague to be in charge of a team and IMO Proto Prog should be added to Psyche instead of Space Prog because there's a natural relation and a very thin line that divides both genres (In this case a team would work).

Those collaborators would then have the sole responsibility for approving the admission of bands to these categories.

Maybe taking turns if there's not enough collaborators availlable to make this work, Sean and Zac's teams had problems to get all the collaborators they need, even my team is currently working with three members (Two for a couple of weeks until Raffaella comes from England).

(*I don't mean that to sound in any way derogatory to anyone, my apologies if it might come across that way)

No apologies required, Bob, I know you enough for that.

Iván

S Lang

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 01 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 441

Posted: July 14 2006 at 19:06

[QUOTE=Ivan_Melgar_M]

M@X and Prog Lucky are entitled to add whatever band they want IMO, they created the site from nothing, so they have the full right to decide about most issues.

Totally agree with that Ivan.

Trouble is, that the name ProgArchives is no longer indicative of the actual content. Contributors come and go, there is a high burn-out rate, due to a degree of disillusionment. In that respect, I understand Peter Rideout's efforts to find an alternative description for the site.

Erik refers to democracy, or the lack of it. I may have missed something, but the Archives doesn't give any undertaking in that respect - only politicians do....

The site is the intellectual creation of the originators and is of a valuable resource, affording SELECT information to anyone, also an opportunity to contribute - within limits. That needs to be understood. Brilliant design for a website that keeps getting better, but it feels that the content had outgrown the name by now. This, I would identify as the most pressing concern.

(A bit like a shirt that was red when new, but with wear has faded to deep orange, or pink. We'd still call it the red shirt, whereas others may not know that it was red - once.)

We can debate the meaning of Progressive until we bleed from the nose - as we have before without success. M@x, you, me, anyone may never agree fully, but I have no doubt of the underlying positive intent.

I suggested before and here I'd like to repeat that by approaching the actual artists - where possible - and ask them if they were comfortable with the term and inclusion, could be decisive beyond our personal interpretations.

For my part, I'd expect to see Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, others recognized here, while some serious culling would also be welcome and supported. But, it's not my site and my democratic right terminates at choosing whether to contribute, or not.

Edited by S Lang - July 15 2006 at 00:14

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: July 14 2006 at 19:16

Well Erik, as you know the Collabs vote on many inclusions to the site, but that is only an elite form of democracy....for the chosen few. As for The Beatles, that of course was Max's wish that they be included but it was announced quite openly. It is his right after all.

Anyway, we voted on Zeps inclusion and the result was a "no". So as a "democracy", thats it. Finito!

Edited by Snow Dog - July 14 2006 at 19:26

Australian View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 13 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3278

Posted: July 14 2006 at 19:25

I say agian, NO

imoeng

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 03 2006
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 2450

Posted: July 17 2006 at 09:10

I agree with people who said no.. Led Zeppelin really are really great musicians, god of rock and roll.. However when I read the definition of progressive rock, they are just not classified as one..

Flip_Stone View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 388

Posted: July 20 2006 at 17:14

We don't need any more overrated hard rock bands in Progachives.

No need for long, ranting, encylopedias on why they don't belong here, either.

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: July 20 2006 at 17:55

I totally agree Flip Stone, Led Zeppelin is a very overrated band, they don't belong in Prog Archives, they have hardly anything to offer in comparison with Talk Talk, ELO, JM Jarre, The Beatles, Radiohead .....

...