Metal Reviews

Led Zepplin would be so much better with Cedric Bixler-Zavala singing.

Yeah, I said it.

You crazy, bitch!

Cedric reminds me of a better Robert Plant, just like The Mars Volta reminds me of a better Led Zepplin.

Also, Claudio Sanchez is awesome. I'm not sure how you can like Cedric and not like Claudio, because they're both in the same territory as far as singing goes.

Led Zeppelin were perfect the way they were.

(and I like Claudio and Cedric too, btw)

Blaspehmous as it might be, I never really got into Led Zeppelin.

(I love both of them as well, but the comment was more aimed at noodles. )

Fair enough. Maybe they're just too "old school" for you to get what an amazing band they were.

(I got that it was for nOObles but didn't want you to take my post for what it wasn't)

I never liked Led Zeppelin either. They're all good at their instruments but it's just, I dunno, really average and there's no reason to listen to them. I learned they actually got sued for ripping people off today and that made me lol. I think I have something subconsciously against the popular 70s rock bands because the only ones I like are Deep Purple and Jethro Tull.

There is one part of Conjugal Burns where Cedric reminds me of C&C guy but that's it. Maybe I'll give them another chance >.>

I dunno, I do like some old-school bands, I'm a big fan of Hendrix and Zappa and The Beatles, but Led Zeppelin just never did much for me at all.

(Got it.)

That's what my um.. WTF? thread was about. I just didn't do it properly.

As for the Zeppelin haters, wow. I didn't know so many "respectable" rock and metal fans didn't like the mighty LedZep. Sure they are not my favourite rock band from the 70's, but they still rock harder than any rock band of today. TMV and C&C included.

Well, I'd always heard "oh hey they ripped off all their licks from blues artists Willie Dixon etc noobs" (so I thought that was what you were referring to) but I didn't know there was an actual court case about it.

They def don't rock harder than Omar and Cedric. Have you seen the video of At the Drive-In playing Arcarsenal live!? It's like the rockinest thing that ever rocked a rock band rock.

A comment either intended to inspire a flamewar, or one simply rooted in complete ignorance.

Rush haven't made a progressive album since before Permanent Waves, if you ask me. So yeah, maybe it could apply to them from about 1980 onwards. HOWEVER...

Listen to everything from Caress of Steel to Hemispheres. If the only progressive leanings you hear are "lyrics...tinged with science fiction and the comic book...and some scattered drum patterns"....

Well. Then you have no business making judgements on music.

I think geeky lyrics + twiddly instruments + long songs + dramatic arrangements is basically = prog, so Coheed and Cambria qualify.

Those things *might* mean that a band has progressive leanings.

Might.

A progressive band strives to challenge standard song structures, to create non-standard chord progressions and combine these things with unusual time signatures. The trick is then to make what should be aural chaos swing like popular music does.

Only the bands which do this should be considered progressive.

That's why all the good prog comes from the 70s. Bands were helping to actually make progress in the field of art rock.

The genre has become stagnant in recent years, and while a band like C&C may attempt to copy what those bands did in the 70s....

Well. What could be less progressive than forgery?

That's a pretty strict and rigidly specific definition of Prog. I like noodle's better. It's simpler.

Think about the word progressive. Just for a second.

They didn't pick that term arbitrarily.

I still like noodles's definition of Prog better. It keeps things simple.

Okay. I'll concede that nood's definition is a fairly accurate description of what the genre of prog has become.

I'm just trying to illustrate what I believe it once meant, and probably still should mean.

EDIT: oh, and just because I hate C&C and I think the genre in general has become stagnant, that doesn't mean I hate all new prog.

There are definitely a few brightly shining stars.

Fair enough. Genres always change and morph into different things over time, and same goes for Prog. I love Yes and early Genesis, but I love a lot of modern stuff as well. So I dunno. I still say C&C are Prog Rock.

The thing is, what is nowadays called *prog* is betraying the very spirit of progressive music. It was originally music that broke free of the pop music rules, music that was experimenting with sounds, structures and themes unknown to the world. Too few of what is called *prog* now works by that definition. For real progressive music, you have to search in the post-rock, electronic, jazz, math-rock scenes but not in the so-called prog scene.
That doesn't mean all the bands that are labeled prog suck, just that they'd better be called something else.

It describes all 70s progressive bands pretty well tbh.



No it wasn't.