Led Zeppelin...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33929
Printed Date: May 06 2025 at 14:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Led Zeppelin...
Posted By: micky
Subject: Led Zeppelin...
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:40
|
Was strangely inspired to review LZ 'IV'today and figure,
as one of those who violently opposed their inclusion here, this thread
might be a nice idea. What are your thoughts on Zeppelin and
their prog quotient. Those who think that Zeppelin was a prog
group, I'd love to hear why. DId Zeppelin react as I've always
bellowed to the prog world around them.. or was Zeppelin's 'name'
enough for them to impact and influence prog. Expecting this thread to sink.. but hope otherwise...
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Replies:
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:47
|
I love Led Zeppelin but their inclusion is rediculous. They are blues-rock and sometimes folk-rock.
This is prog-archives not thingswhichinspiredprog-archives so I see no reason for them to be included. ------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:52
|
read first.. then answer if you wish... I didn't ask if they should be included... that has been discussed enough.
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 18:58
 so if you were to set up a database about the American War Of Independance for example, you would only have information directly concerning the timeline of the course of the "war" and nothing about what caused it?
C'mon.....
 |
Kid-A wrote:Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 19:17
|
Led Zeppelin had a huge impact on the rock world in general. They influenced a lot of bands, including my favorite - Rush. They had proggy moments as well. The Battle of Evermore. In the Light. A lot of their music was just great rock and roll. I heard Geddy Lee state in an interview on XM radio that Led Zeppelin was progressive to a degree. I don't know. I for one am glad they are here. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 19:25
thank you Tony. You are dead on... let me add to that anology... and bring up... not only what caused it... but what happened as a result of it. (not that I'm now agreeing with the decision hahah. .but it does have some logic hahaha). Zeppelin's progression from.. let's face it ..ripping off blues artists (and poor Jake Holmes  )
to actually creating songs that have some intrinsic artistic
aspirations was not done in a vacuum.. they toured with Tull.. were
friends of and and label mates of Yes. They saw the winds of the
musical world ..and sailed upon them. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ZowieZiggy
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 19:50
|
I'm glad you have posted a topic on "my beloved Led Zep". As far as I am concerned, the influence of Led Zep on prog music is close to zero (although I mentioned in my review for "Heavy Horses" - Tull 1978 that "No Lullaby" seriously reminds me of "Tea For One" from Led Zep (Presence, 1976). Have a try and listen to both tracks one after the other and you will be amazed.
To go on with these two bands, maybe that a song like "Kashmir" might have haunted Ian while writing "Roots To Branches" (the album) but I'm not quite sure.
Apart from these little details I can't think of a prog band who can claim any Led Zep influence upon their work.
When I started to love Led Zep (December 1970), I can tell you : NO ONE ever mention the slightest link with prog music. They were the archetype of heavy and hard rock. OK, they will have wonderful acoustic songs (mainly on Led Zep III (critics will violently react to this). These will be their trade mark during concerts. Page/Plant sitting on the edge of the stage to perform "Tangerine", "That's The Way", "The Battle..." or "Going To California".
But writing acoustic songs does not mean you write prog songs, right ?
About Stairway. First of all, it is deeply inspired (to say the least) from the song "Taurus" performed by the band Spirit (I'm listening to it while I write).
Randy California (the songwriter for Spirit) was often asked about it in interviews, to which he typically responded that he did not consider the "Stairway" intro to be a rip-off, but a simply a "reworking" of his song (he is very gentle).
Led Zeppelin was the opening act for Spirit's 1968 tour but nobody in Led Zep has ever cited influence from the track. (these info's are available on Wikipedia if you want to double -check). Having said that, yes "Stairway" is a great moment in the rock music. Is it prog ?
Again, back to 1971, I have never read that it was a prog song. Does a song turned into prog as time passes by ? (if so maybe that "Paranoïd" will be called a prog song in 2214) !
If you listen carefully to it, it's intro is quite close to what prog could have delivered.
The last part of the song is hard-rocking alright, so is a band called prog because he produced a few songs related to this genre ?
Is Genesis a hard rock band because they released "The Knife" and "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed" ?
Sorry to have been rather long (but Micky knows that I prefer poster than post-it).
Cheers. ------------- ZowieZiggy |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 19:55
| ....a Prog Band influenced by Led Zep..........Rush perchance? |
Posted By: Father Tiresias
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 19:59
|
I don't consider Led Zeppelin to be a prog band, they just used prog elements on their later days, an example of this might be "Carouselambra" . I think their inclusion in this site fits more than many bands listed that have nothing to do with prog rock!!!, mostly pure metal bands that I won't name. You can't talk about classic rock without talking about Led Zep. They are on the same level of Yes, KC and all the classic rock bands you want to name.! is there anyone that constantly visit Prog Archives who doesn't like Led Zep? -Peace |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 20:19
|
Zep was special because of how much they grew and changed over the eleven and a half years they were together. They progressed as artists more than any other band in their family of heavy blues. Also I can tell you [having heard well over a hundred live performances of theirs spanning late 1968 as the 'New Yardbirds' for a short time, through the Knebworth shows in 1979] that they were one of the most progressive rock bands in the world.
However; Prog rock? No, not at all, and micky is correct in suggesting that Zep got much more from Prog than Prog got from Zep. Page and Jones were seasoned studio men when they met, and Bonham and Plant had been professionally gigging for years. They all knew how to play almost anything; country, folk, jazz, reggae, whatever was called for. That's why Zep was doing such varied material by 1973 ...progressive, not Prog. |
Posted By: Froth
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 20:33
| depends what you think 'Prog' is. If you think it a term to decribe genuinly innovative music then they certainly wouldnt be there, but then again, in my opinion, 99% of so called 'prog' bands aren't in the slightest bit innovative and to me and many others 'prog' just describes the more self-indulgent bands of the 70s. and Led Zep would certainly be at home in that catagory. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 20:44
|
Interesting, but I strongly disagree about Zep not being genuinely innovative-- sometimes it's forgotten what an astoundingly deep impact the first two albums had. Remeber, both Zep 1 and 2 came out in 1969, and they weren't like anything ever heard before-- sure Page took from everyone (especially Hendrix, Jeff Beck & Rod Stewart, CSN, etc.), but the result was a masterful, concentrated version of the rock of the 60s. They showed what could be done with real musicianship and form before most prog bands had developed a style.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 21:17
I see little influence on 'prog' Rush by Zeppelin.. there are such things as inspirational influences.. and creative. I sure don't see the creative.. and would love to know what they are if you can explain Tony. I never have seen it.. but you're the expert on them.. I'm just the guy who gives their good name wedgies and runs their pants up the flagpole ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: spo1977
Date Posted: February 01 2007 at 23:22
| I love it when people decid a band is not prog. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 07:22
|
LZ is my love. Hehe. They never made an album that comes REALLY close to being prog (HOTH is not far, though). However, a compilation of their prog songs would be (if released) at least a top 20 issue for our top 100. They were a band influenced by prog, their own influence to prog was little and not essential - Yes' "Going fot the One" (the song) shows that. And more important, they brought complexity inside "hard and heavy music" since 1970 without it's fans even noticing it... they were too seduced for that. (Well some did notice - I read a booklet review inside Sabbath's "Master of Reality" where it said that this release came perfect to fill the gap left for hard rock fans when Zepp changed direction after their second album). Except for parts of their first two albums, who were also higly progressive regarding sound, there isn't much of their writing that could be called simplistic (again except for those light, humorous songs like Hot Dog, D'yer Mak'er, Rock'n'roll, Candy Store Rock, etc. - which were not meant to prove anything actually related to music). They were not considered prog at the time because they stole the show... so they were mainstream.
Micky's review is good, fair; there's just one thing I don't agree with: you can't say "selling lots of albums was important to them" while reviewing the album they released without any commercial marks just to show that their music and nothing else is what drives the Zeppelin phenomenon... and they put their sales at risk. Brave men they were. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 07:23
| Not Prog, but they had a couple of Prog moments and I don't really have a problem with them being in Prog Related. I don't like the idea of having a category called Prog Related though. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 07:35
|
Led Zep had a huge influence on all types of music including Prog - JP hated labels, the group played all sorts of music including Prog but not all - that is why they are in Prog-related.
...and so should The Who for the same reasons
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 07:45
|
Maybe Led Zeppelin are not prog, but they do have one thing in common with prog bands: an average LZ listener will listen to the band in a same way that an average prog fan will listen to some prog band. What I mean is, listener will pay attention to complex solos, unusual guitar chords, complex drumming by Bonzo etc. in a same way Genesis' fan will listen to the mellotron, Hackett's solo etc. You can listen music from different point of view - and get excited by lyrics, energy, sound, atmosphere - by listening to Clash or AC/DC. But personally I think that much more people listen to Zep the same way Genesis' fan listen to Genesis, rather than AC/DC fan to AC/DC, despite the fact they are both hard rock bands. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 07:55
| I've never thought of Led Zep as a prog band and I'm not sure how many prog bands they actually influenced, apart from Rush. They do have a few songs with prog tendencies (mainly The Rain Song) and I have no problem with them being here. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 08:07
Steve, you know I agree with you about The Who, but when we raised the question in the Collabs section the vote was overwhelmingly against. Unfortunately, unless we get a green light from the owners as we did in the case of LZ, The Beatles or other such additions, we risk starting another war. This is something that I, as part of the Admin Team, would rather not see happen. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 08:18
Generally I'd agree with you. I fought against their inclusion too, (ans as Micky says in hios opening post, he did as well) but hey!!!!!!!! they won their inclusion
So please get over it (I did!!
 , I even reviewed their albums in roughly three hours time to legitimize their inclusion) Stop yourself from growing an ulcer because Zep is included in the PÄ. Just not worth it. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Froth
Date Posted: February 02 2007 at 13:21
Of course, they were certainly innovative in a rock context, but i would like to think you need more than that to be concidered 'progressive'. Think of Miles Davis. he did alot for jazz but he also did alot for music in general and that makes him truley innovative. I not sure what Led Zep did for anything other than hard rock. Thats not to say the band didnt make some very enjoyable music. Tangerine and the Rain Song are favourites of mine.
by the way i agree with that other guy. The Who have far more right be here than Zep
|
Posted By: S Lang
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 06:11
|
LZ were Prog to the generation that grew up on their contribution and nothing will take that away. Try to find a comparable band today with a similar, versatile approach.
Blues, Rock, Prog were all there influencing and educating millions in music.
|
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 07:03
Not in my neck of the woods they weren't! Zep were known as a heavy-blues-hard-rock band, hugely inventive and influential, but never were they considered to be Prog. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 08:14
|
@Joolz: you're right from this perspective. Also, most of their fans really were "heavy-blues-hard-rock" fans. However, I think they way Zeppelin is considered must change, at least now and here; if at the time the fans didn't feel much of a difference when Zeppelin started making more complex music (with many prog sides) because the band perfectly integrated it in their normal sound, that doesn't mean this side didn't exist and shouldn't be acknowledged by us. How many "heavy-blues-hard-rock" bands could have done No Quarter, Kashmir, Achilles Last Stand, The Song Remains the Same, In My Time of Dying, Rain Song, Carouselambra, Trampled Under Foot or In the Light? @Froth - indeed the music of Zepp wasn't seminal for the prog area but for the larger rock genre; maybe they had some influence in some cases of prog bands getting rockier. Their contribution from prog comes from them being influenced by the major prog acts (like Yes, imo). The fact that they were rather influenced to get proggier than were themselves seminal for prog doesn't throw any shadow on their proggier material, however. It would, if it would be praised as prog's eight wonder, but up till now it hasn't been. Myself I don't think all prog's hotspots needed to be innovative in order to be accepted as progressive, and actually many weren't - and they were still both progressive and great. @Avatachron: I second your last post, but I have a nuance to bring. You say Zepp took what was best from 60s rock and and made an essential compilation of it. I think the essential 60s rock with a masterful guitar lead and a hard-edge rock approach was to be found not in Zepp I, but on Beck's albums (like Beck-ola and Truth). To my ears, what Zepp I brought was a new, different (than that of the 60s) way to write and play rock. It had in it what was the big difference, and that was more important than what it in common to 60s rock. I'm basing these comments on Dazed and Confused and How Many More Times on one side, for more complex rock, and on Good Times, Bad Times and Communication Breakdown on the other, for hard rock. Also one more thing - Zepp I is a sample of the way they related to rock in 68, not in 69. The album was released in the US in January 69 but it was recorded in October 68 if I'm not wrong, and Page was already playing parts of the material while still with the Yardbirds. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 10:24
|
Well why don't we just add Bach and Beethoven to the progarchives? They had more of an influence on symphonic prog, so why aren't they in the archives by the same logic? -------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 13:28
I'm positive to the idea of adding Bach, Beethoven and a multitude of other composers to the Proto-Prog section. If we are going to have a Proto-Prog category, let's make it complete. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 13:43
I apologise for repeating myself, but I think that for some people a simple, basic fact is far from clear. This is not our website. The final decisions concerning site structure, subgenres, additions and such are made by the owners, Rony and M@x. Therefore, if none of us Admins or Special Collaborators has yet taken the initiative of adding Bach, Beethoven, Miles Davis or what not to the site's database, it is for this very simple reason. Like it or not, this is the way things are. Personally, I wish that those people who like to criticise PA's current policy would write to the owners in order to present their suggestions to them. I keep on seeing people saying they are against Proto-Prog and Prog-Related, even when they've been told dozens of times that it is the owners' wish to have those two categories. Is it so difficult to be proactive instead of complaining all the time, or making snide remarks?  |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 13:45
|
The addition of classical composers would require a lot more though before it could even be considered. The obvious issue is that they are not performers. The site structure is set up around the model of recording artists and their work. There are many different recordings of the works of the famous composers, some excellent, some very poor. If we were to list every recording of Beethoven's 9th alone, we would have a list of several hundred albums.
Perhaps a more practical approach would be to add an extended essay to the proto prog description detailing how classical music influenced prog.
Alternatively, how about a classical music section in the forum, with separate threads for each relevant composer?
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 17:43
Well, there certainly was a major connection between Beck/Stewart and Zep, in fact Zep took much inspiration from Jeff Beck's hugely talented group and capitalized on the vacuum left by them and the death of Hendrix. Your correct that LZ l was written and recorded in 1968 but since it was released in '69, I consider its impact to have taken place in '69. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 17:51
Sounds like a novel idea!  |
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: February 07 2007 at 22:18
|
I see Led Zep a lot like ELP in their approach to expanding thheir respective musical genres.
ELP progged up classical music &
Led Zep progged up blues ------------- |