and many other songs!

down by the sea side and wanton song!!!!

If there are bands on the progarchives that were not widely considered as "prog" or "prog related" in the 70's, time cannot change the actual music, therefore they are still not "prog" or "prog related" now. I love Led Zeppelin, but I love them as a rock and roll band. Never a prog band.

Sure there are "prog" songs by non-prog artists, such as Led Zeppelin. But I don't see why we should include them in the archives. That's just my opinion.

No.

I love Physical Graffiti, but no, keep Led Zeppelin out of the prog archives. The site is already too diluted as it is with goof-ball half-prog. Don't embarass Led Zeppelin by inducting them.

"Fireball" is not "included in the site" as such, Deep Purple are.

In other words, you need to make your case for Led Zeppelin being included in the archives, not just for one of their albums.

I don't want to characterize Led Zeppelin as progressive band!

I want only that their unquestionable prog efforts (Friends, Kashmir, No Quarter...) can be discussed and reviewed, somehow, here in PA!

Agree with you Stephen, but I'd include also Blue Oyster Cult!

Dick Heath wrote: zabriskiepoint wrote: I believe that if Fireball is included in the site as prog, Physical Graffiti, and maybe even In through the out door; Physical Graffitti contains tracks such as Kashmir or in the Light that are ceratinly porg, or at least proto-prog. How can Kashmir  be proto anything being recorded at least 6 years after the probable start date of prog in 1968? That master of the guitar 'Prof' David 'Fuze' Fuczinski, calls this stuff eastern exotic groove jams

Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple can be seen as Proto-Prog in regard to the Prog Metal bands ... but IMO that's too far fetched. These bands were Proto-Metal, if anything. And then out of Metal Prog-Metal came to be.

I guess many people simply confuse Proto-Prog and Prog Related.

Wouldn' there be some misunderstanding in the use of "proto-prog"? Some understand it as "prototype prog" like a prototype machine as compared to the final product. Others understand it as "almost-prog" or "nearly-prog". Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen have been "nearly-prog" with some numbers on some albums. Not Proto-prog the way "Stray" or "Mayblitz" were.

I personally use the expression "frontier-prog" to qualify bands like Led Zep. I mean band who were not prog but came very close and could have become.

For what it's worth

rockandrail wrote: Wouldn' there be some misunderstanding in the use of "proto-prog"? Some understand it as "prototype prog" like a prototype machine as compared to the final product. Others understand it as "almost-prog" or "nearly-prog". Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Queen have been "nearly-prog" with some numbers on some albums. Not Proto-prog the way "Stray" or "Mayblitz" were. I personally use the expression "frontier-prog" to qualify bands like Led Zep. I mean band who were not prog but came very close and could have become. For what it's worth

Proto Prog really means "Prototype" Prog. The Problem with Deep Purple is that their first two albums are considered to be Proto-Prog by some, and thus they were put in Proto-Prog. But IMO they belong to Prog Related (which is intended for "Nearly Prog" bands, as you put it), because in retrospect Deep Purple are not remembered for songs like April or their collaboration with a symphony orchestra, but for key albums like Machine Head or In Rock.

There is a problem here I suppose. In the early to mid 1970's at least here in the UK music was seen as split between the singles market dominated by glam rock (T Rex Slade Glitter Sweet etc) and more serious album based rock.

It was the one period in rock music's history when prog rock was the dominant musical force as regards album based music. Bands like Floyd, Genesis, Tull etc sold in their millions and inevitably there was some crossover into mainsteam rock with bands like Zep. From what I remember of those times there was not the divide among serious music fans then that a lot of people now consider there to be.

Is there a constraint on this site as to the number of bands and records that can be included

as prog. Some artists who start as prog finsh as MOR and yet their later albums are included. (For example there is an album by the Moody Blues included containing their version of Christmas standards!) What about a sub-genre to include interesting prog influenced albums of bands who are not principally prog but leaving out the rest of their output? 

I think the inclusion of Led Zeppelin, and indeed Black Sabbath, is a double edged sword. Whilst there are certainly progressive moments in their catalogue, whether there is enough to justify their inclusion is doubtful. Also, the term 'prog related' does neither band any favours- it in my opinion devalues their music in a sense.

For me, the inclusion of Deep Purple was 100% the right one- I've said many times that it was a grave injustice that the band weren't here, and offshoots like Captain Beyond, Warhorse (even Blackmore's Night!) plus bands who did similar music to DP yet came later, such as Quatermass, Odin, Uriah Heep and Still Life were. I'd say there were at least 6 albums I'd label as being 'progressive rock', either in the early days of the genre with albums like 'Shades...', '..Taliesyn', 'Deep Purple', 'Concerto...', 'In Rock' and 'Fireball'. For me, all of these albums have more than enough progressive content on them.

Politician wrote: Maybe the solution would be to have a "Classic Rock" classification in which all these bands could be included. Because whilst many prog fans love LED ZEPPELIN, QUEEN, DEEP PURPLE, BLACK SABBATH et al, none of those bands is prog per se.

Don't forget Blue Oyster Cult!