Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 10-26-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

theres no doubt that zeppelin is more known to kids today. The Allman Brothers were more technical in their approach to writing music. sure, Jimmy Page would bust out some fast solos, but that doesnt make them more technical. The Allmans used more complex time signatures. They incorporated Jazz and Classical influences in their music. Zeppelin was more pop, especially with songs like whole lotta love and dazed and confused. Not to mention they plagiarized those songs, but thats another story.

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.