Led Zep!!

Oh please the main influence on Led Zeps music is, as anyone can hear, THE BLUES, WILLIE DIXON, et al.....

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 [IMG]height=17 alt=Censored src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley35.gif" width=34 align=absMiddle>

    You have any other interests other than promoting Led Zep as a Prog Band.
I have an idea,why not contact the band and ask them if they consider themselves to be a Prog Rock band?

Remember though that Jimmmy practices the Dark Arts...

Forum Admin & Moderator

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

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

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

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

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!

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).

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