Music Banter - View Single Post - Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?
View Single Post
Old 10-26-2011, 05:06 PM   #21 (permalink)
blastingas10
Music Addict
 
blastingas10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra View Post
With that said, one could argue that Zeppelin was more 'progressive' even if blatant song thieves. Allmans might be more technical but would be more dry, and blatant in their output. Zeppelin experimented in a myriad of unconventional instruments in recording, extended technique, etc.

Songs like Kashmir, No Quarter, etc. prove that the band was much more about studio depth, and songwriting, than actual chord technique. Zep were exceptionally proficient in studio, along with technical, which really set them apart from most mainstream bands from the 1970s, even good ones, that play very complex music by today's standards, but sound much older. I imagine for their time, Zeppelin sounded fairly future looking.

Which brings us to the original point, it's kind of unfair how prog is blandly stereotyped as anything that's complex.
Youre right, The Allmans were more technical and more traditional, while zepp were more experimental. But you cant blame a band for sticking to their roots. And zepp deserves credit for being experimental. But while The Allmans were more traditional, they were also a pioneering band of southern rock. They had a pretty original sound.

Last edited by blastingas10; 10-26-2011 at 05:22 PM.
blastingas10 is offline   Reply With Quote