Led Zeppelin

andu wrote: Snow Dog wrote: andu wrote: Zowie, you seem to have stumbled only over the non relevant sides of this matter. Sorry.   Cheers. No he hasn't. Look at the thread question. Prog or not. He has answered the query.   You're right, Zowie's basic reaction to the thread is correct. Sorry about that. However most of the rest of the comments is uncorrect and irrelevant.

I don't know about that, but at least he says something! He elaborates by mentioning some songs.

No need to be sorry btw!

ZowieZiggy wrote: Led Zep is absolutely not prog nor prog related.

Does this mean the Owners & Collaborators who made this choice know nothing about the matter? Add the same about the others that subscribed to the opinion & decision.
Also, have you took a look at the prog-related definition? Here it is:

Rock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined, even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands. A wide subgenre that encompasses two kinds of bands/artist, that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock or were influenced by progressive rock. Even though the music by these artists is sometimes unrelated it had things in common with prog music in that it was very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Sometimes these artists pioneered other rock genres. Though most of these artist can't really be considered progressive themselves, their relation to progressive music is not to be underestimated.

I have underlined the parts that prove in my opinion that you should reconsider your statement. Zeppelin was/had all those.

Back again.

ZowieZiggy wrote: They have released a few acoustic songs ("Tangerine", "That's The Way", "Going To California", "The Battle Of Evermore", "The Rain Song" ... but this is not making a band prog, right ?

That seems to me obscuring the truth. How can you discuss Zepp's progressiveness by only talking about a tiny irrelevant part of their work? How can you ignore the other half of their work, which gave us The Song Remains the Same, Rain Song, No Quarter, Kashmir, In the Light, Trampled Under Foot, In My Time of Dying, Achilles Last Stand and Carouselmbra? Especially if that side based the decision for inclusion. It is these songs that you should be analyzing, not the early acoustic stuff.

ZowieZiggy wrote: As far as I can remember (my first Led Zep record was the single "Whole A Lotta Love" which I purchased in 1970 NO ONE WOULD EVER MENTIONED THE SLIGHTIEST LINK BETWEEN LED ZEP AND PROGIN THOSE DAYS.

Correct, but does this prove anything else than that because of their hot, hard rockin' start, fans kept seeing them as such no matter what? The advantage of the test of time is gaining new perspectives. Anyway it is not perception that is discussed here, but music.

ZowieZiggy wrote: OK, this legendary track (and one of my all time fave rock song) has a vague prog mood (but it is plagiatory, so you can not ).

You're not entitled to call that "plagiarism" until a court sentence; till then, keep the word "inspiration", it's much better. BTW, even the law accepts a certain amount of the "borrowing" kind of "inspiration" (no more than four tempos, or what's the word) as legal and moral.

ZowieZiggy wrote: Led Zep is the quintescence of the hard rock genre (and the influence of  lots ofheavy metal bands - which I do not like).

You seem to be an honest fan, but how can you not notice the way each Zeppelin albums sounds different to the previous? Except for the first two albums, which are indeed the essential compilation of the 60s hard blues-rock made in a groundbreaking new approach, you really can't include any Zeppelin issue to any rock subgenre (prog also). They were just to diverse and, as the definition says, adventurous. Also, pioneering hard rock with their early stuff doesn't set incompatibility with being "prog-related" - that's also stated in the definition.
This being said, I want to remind Avatachron's sentence "not prog, but progressive". I don't see the problem in us all accepting that.
I'm waiting for the reviews, I hope they'll be at least as good as the others you've made in the last time.
Cheers.

sheeves wrote: i think their innovative style and fantastic live shows makes them prog, especially do to Jimmy Page's different techniques with the guitar, such as using a bow on a guitar and using a doubleneck.

oh yippie.. look at all the Zeppelin threads...

for this one a big

no way are they prog... and unless you count their appeal as a marketing tool for prog websites.. not even prog related..

rileydog22 wrote: I define Prog as "Rock that demonstrates superior intelligence," and the site's definition is basically that in more words.  To me, Led Zeppelin didn't make any music any "smarter" than any other classic rock band.  For that matter, neither did Queen; it was all pop with bombast, and bombast does not prog make.

On the contrary, despite their 'heavy metal bad boys' reputation, Led Zeppelin not only made intelligent rock music, they were clearly a smart group of guys showing taste and elegance in a normally juvenile genre. Queen as well, highly intelligent people doing smart rock with panache.





Edited by Atavachron - February 14 2007 at 23:03

I love Zep. I mean they really are one of my favourite bands. But I don't consider them prog.

This site has an identity crisis! On one hand we have the likes of Led Zep, Beatles, and various other fine bands included, on the other hand you have some individual works of music that are very definitely prog related, but are not included, because with this site it's either all or nothing - either the artiste's entire canon is included, warts and all, or there's nothing.

ZowieZiggy wrote: ...

Reason-based debates are the "life" of the forums so please join or start as many as you can, because your posts are always solid and insightful. However I wouldn't want you to stop or slow down reviewing, you're doing a great job!
Nothing more to add about Zeppelin I guess, we're all in the phase where we rather speak to the walls than accept someone else's opinions.

This has been discussed before and still the answer is: No, they're not Prog, some of their material had Proggish elements, they were an influential band, they discovered new musical land, they were fantastic. They shouldn't be in the Archives, which is something that has to be said about other bands, Queen among them IMHO. As long as there's the ProgArchives this question will be brought up again and again.  Please stop it!
I LOVE LED ZEPPELIN!

^ what he said. But LZ IV is a prog-related album.

Good idea ... I haven't written a review here in quite a while. But when I find some time, shouldn't I rather review a prog album? The agony of choice!