# Best Prog Rock Band



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Who was the best progressive rock band? Wait for the poll. Please choose 3 maximum


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Other: The Mars Volta.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Pink Floyd, Genesis and other: Porcupine Tree.

PS: you misspelled Procol Harum.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm sorry, I limited it to the max and chose eight: Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes, Jethro Tull, Soft Machine, Roxy Music, Mothers of Invention and Henry Cow.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Well, if we are not going to follow the OP's wishes, I would also vote for Roxy Music, Uriah Heep, and Yes from this list.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I'm quite fond of Procol Harum - not just _A Whiter Side of Pale_ too.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

bz3 said:


> Other: The Mars Volta.


They are so intense, they don't let you breathe. :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.

Shouldn't Queen be on this list too?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.
> 
> Shouldn't Queen be on this list too?


A useful link for the definition: Progarchives.

Both Genesis and Floyd have classical influences as well by the way.

Queen had prog tendencies early on.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> A useful link for the definition: Progarchives.
> 
> Both Genesis and Floyd have classical influences as well by the way.
> 
> Queen had prog tendencies early on.


I can see some Jazz influence in Floyd (especially in Richard Wright's parts), but even that is a bit of a stretch for me. What songs display a strong Classical influence in your opinion?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.
> 
> Shouldn't Queen be on this list too?


One definition is rock that abandoned pop traditions in favour of instruementation and compositional techniques of classical, folk or jazz as in Wikipedia. I never took Queen as a serious band, but they can be under 'other'


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I can see some Jazz influence in Floyd (especially in Richard Wright's parts), but even that is a bit of a stretch for me. What songs display a strong Classical influence in your opinion?


Atom heart mother (the 24 min title track) is a collaboration of PF and composer Ron Geesin.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Atom heart mother (the 24 min title track) is a collaboration of PF and composer Ron Geesin.


I don't take all that early Floyd very seriously. I wouldn't say it even sounds very composed, it sounds like random noise jumbled together. I don't find it coherent at all, and lacking in structure and development.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> One definition is rock that abandoned pop traditions in favour of instruementation and compositional techniques of classical, folk or jazz as in Wikipedia. I never took Queen as a serious band, but they can be under 'other'


Would you agree DSOTM is more back to the pop traditions while The Wall is more progressive rock?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

You're missing several Krautrock bands which should be classified, overall, under progressive rock. Also, does it have to be a "band"? 

Rules aside, I'd choose something like: 

(1) Klaus Schulze
(2) Robert Wyatt
(3) Faust
(4) Pink Floyd
(5) Can

... ... ... unless we're limiting the definition to not include some of its sub-genres?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

AfterHours said:


> You're missing several Krautrock bands...


There are of course numerous bands missing due to the poll format. Starting with those from the 80s and later (not just prog metal but also e.g. Marillion, IQ, Mars Volta), but also basically anything not from the UK or US, such as the Italians (e.g. PFM, QVC, Banco), Canadians (e.g. Harmonium, Maneige) and Dutch (e.g. Focus, Kayak). Even for the UK, a band like Camel should have been on the list.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

_Mothers of Invention

__and don't forget Oz prog - a very often missed category of Prog
Bands like Ariel (Spectrum), Ayers Rock and Sebastian Hardie to name a few_


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.


Pink Floyd isn't progressive rock

Genesis from 1970 through 1976 is undoubtedly progressive rock (albeit mostly pretty lousy progressive rock on the first & last albums of that vintage). Your question makes sense if you only know their later, more popular music, but if you do know their early-through-mid-70s music, maybe you could tell me how you DON'T consider these examples progressive rock?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Some of my absolute favorites (Hatfield and the north and Caravan) are not in the list. And I'm surprised that Van Der Graaf Generator and Gentle Giants are not in the poll, since are usually considered two of the most important bands in the genre.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I would say some Pink Floyd is progressive rock. Genesis pre pop period where they sold their soles was prog but not to my taste. Oh and Prog is not a combo of classical and rock


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Genesis pre pop period where they sold their soles was prog but not to my taste.


The _good_ prog by Genesis is one thing, but there's much more soul in an excellent pop song like "Follow You Follow Me" or "Abacab" than in thoroughly uncommercial, thoroughly worthless prog like "One for the Vine" (yes the last minute is okay, so what there's 9 before that)


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

To answer the original question, I kind of think the story of progressive rock is Robert Fripp taking some half-evolved ideas from the Nice and running with them to make _In the Court of the Crimson King_ and then a bunch of guys (literally a bunch of guys, and Annie Haslam) trying to catch up with him for the next 5 years


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> There are of course numerous bands missing due to the poll format... but also basically anything not from the UK or US, such as the Italians (e.g. PFM, QVC, Banco)


Strongly agree with this. The first three or four albums by PFM and Banco are as good as anything produced by any English bands in the same period. Make sure you go for the Italian language originals though as the English language versions made to tap into the UK/American market don't work that well - it's clear that the vocalists struggled to sing in that language.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate (May 24, 2015)

I can honestly say that this is a sub-genre of rock for which I have no use. None of those bands - at least the ones I have actually heard of - has ever produced anything that I have ever really enjoyed.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Deleted - messed up the pictures.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

For those interested:

Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso (1972)









Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - Darwin! (1972)









Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - Io Sono Nato Libero (1973)









Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - Come In Un'Ultima Cena (1976)


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Premiata Forneria Marconi - Storia Di Un Minuto (1972)









Premiata Forneria Marconi - Per Un Amico (1972)









Premiata Forneria Marconi - L'Isola Di Niente (1974)


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I selected Pink Floyd (of this list Moody Blues would be second). However I listen to more modern progressive rock and none of them are really listed. They'd probably come before Pink Floyd.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> A useful link for the definition: Progarchives.
> 
> Both Genesis and Floyd have classical influences as well by the way.
> 
> Queen had prog tendencies early on.


Progarchives is a great website. It was my primary online musical home in my 20s before classical started to dominate my listening.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Here's a question - I've long seen/heard Rush referred to as Prog Rock; but they never seem to be mentioned in these threads - & you guys obviously know your stuff. Is this because they_ aren't_ really considered to be a Prog band? ..... or is there just no love for them here on TC?


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I would definitely consider Rush to be a prog band, particularly their output up to the early 1980s.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm a massive Pineapple Thief fan so they are still top of my prog rock list. Seen Uriah Heep live lots of time over the years and their gig at Manchester Apollo circa 1980 was one of the best ever. My dad's a huge,Moody Blues fan so i have a soft spot for them too. Honorary mention for King Crimson for being one of the best live bands I've seen too (1982) and Colosseum for must being awesome.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

I voted for 5. Then I realized the OP says 3. Whoops 

Unfortunately I wasn't able to vote for 4 of my top 5 choices, except as "Other" (representing all 4 I guess...). So with those unused votes, I added King Crimson, Soft Machine, and Mothers of Invention, (to Pink Floyd and Other). Pity I couldn't vote for my actual top 4: Klaus Schulze, Robert Wyatt (though partially represented by Soft Machine), Faust, and Can, but oh well...


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Merl said:


> I'm a massive Pineapple Thief fan so they are still top of my prog rock list. Seen Uriah Heep live lots of time over the years and their gig at Manchester Apollo circa 1980 was one of the best ever. My dad's a huge,Moody Blues fan so i have a soft spot for them too. Honorary mention for King Crimson for being one of the best live bands I've seen too (1982) and Colosseum for must being awesome.


Oh yes, I just discovered Pineapple Thief and they are very good


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I voted for KC off the list.

I do take a bit of exception with the wording of the poll, "Who *was* the best prog band". As if progressive music is a thing of the past.

Since about the mid 90's, there has been a very fertile worldwide prog movement, with bands that rival some of the best of the 70's.

The other problem I have with the poll, is the over representation of British bands. Where are PFM, Banco, Le Orme? Italy produced some of the best prog of the 70's. The above 3 bands are better, IMO, than several on the list.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.
> 
> Shouldn't Queen be on this list too?


As a big prog fan, I somewhat agree with your definition. Although, jazz and wold music are also a big part of prog.

But there are many modern bands, that do not have classical or jazz influence, that I still consider prog, based on other attributes.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

to me the best italian prog was done by other bands, especially like Area, Napoli Centrale, Stormy Six, Locanda Delle Fate, Picchio dal Pozzo. But onestly I don't have a very high opinion of italian prog as a whole.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

norman bates said:


> to me the best italian prog was done by other bands, especially like Area, Napoli Centrale, Stormy Six, Locanda Delle Fate, Picchio dal Pozzo. But onestly I don't have a very high opinion of italian prog as a whole.


The bands you mention are much more jazzy / RIO influenced rather than being symphonic prog in the style of PFM or Banco. Apart from Locanda Delle Fate, which is heavily PFM influenced. I really like Area though and Picchio Dal Pozzo's first eponymous album is wonderful, highly recommended to fans of "Canterbury" bands like Caravan and early Soft Machine.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

chill782002 said:


> The bands you mention are much more jazzy / RIO influenced rather than being symphonic prog in the style of PFM or Banco. Apart from Locanda Delle Fate, which is heavily PFM influenced. I really like Area though and Picchio Dal Pozzo's first eponymous album is wonderful, highly recommended to fans of "Canterbury" bands like Caravan and early Soft Machine.


yes, I tend to prefer that kind of stuff to the classic italian prog bands and even more the library music and some other experimental music of the period, like certain albums of Luciano Cilio, Franco Battiato, Lucio Battisti or Sensation's fix, or some crazy stuff like NADMA or the album Feed-back. Basically stuff that was for the italian music what krautrock (not exactly, but in the sense that was different and often more experimental) was in germany, more than classic prog.
La locanda delle fate is a big exception for me, I don't like the singer but I like the fairy atmosphere of their music.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't take all that early Floyd very seriously. I wouldn't say it even sounds very composed, it sounds like random noise jumbled together. I don't find it coherent at all, and lacking in structure and development.


Well I don't take Floyd seriously after the 70s


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I don't much have much use anymore for post 70s King Crimson, but really liked their music from 69 to 74 or 75 whatever their last year was.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> Some of my absolute favorites (Hatfield and the north and Caravan) are not in the list. And I'm surprised that Van Der Graaf Generator and Gentle Giants are not in the poll, since are usually considered two of the most important bands in the genre.


Yeah, I know next to nothing about prog rock but even I can tell that Van Der Graaf Generator is pretty awesome.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

laurie said:


> Here's a question - I've long seen/heard Rush referred to as Prog Rock; but they never seem to be mentioned in these threads - & you guys obviously know your stuff. Is this because they_ aren't_ really considered to be a Prog band? ..... or is there just no love for them here on TC?


They're prog, but personally I like them less than scores of other bands.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Laurie, I am a huge Rush enthusiast, whether they were/are Prog or not. Labels Schmabels. Often the most revered artists or groups are _sui generis_ and either transcend categories, engulf them, or create them.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I loved 70s and early 80s Rush. Got to see em live on the Hemispheres tour and they were great. Fell out of love with em when they produced crud like Power Windows. Yawn.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Merl said:


> I loved 70s and early 80s Rush. Got to see em live on the Hemispheres tour and they were great. Fell out of love with em when they produced crud like Power Windows. Yawn.


Similar here. I loved the way Rush burst into the 80s with _Permanent Waves_ and _Moving Pictures_ - two great albums which triumphantly cast off their 70s fantasy epic style while still retaining the potency of a power trio: great if they could have carried on like that but I found _Signals_ unexciting and when they became ever more streamlined I gave up.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Merl said:


> I loved 70s and early 80s Rush. Got to see em live on the Hemispheres tour and they were great. Fell out of love with em when they produced crud like Power Windows. Yawn.


I don't hear/see any real difference in quality (excellent to the ears of this Rush enthusiast) in the albums leading up to Power Windows: Moving Pictures, Signals, Grace Under Pressure. Maybe after Presto, a change. But I can't find the inflection point implied with Power Windows. But it's all a matter of individual taste.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I don't know about best, but my favorite over the years has been King Crimson - for their intensity, extremes of contrast, and miraculously good improvisations. The new music they are creating now is wonderful and topical. Just wish they were doing _more_ new composing.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

The French produced some very interesting prog in the mid-late 70s and early 80s.

Here are two fairly obscure bands that are favourites of mine:


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

I have already given up with the whole definition thang but would still like to point out the the inclusion of Roxy Music as a prog band would have come as a big big shock to my teenage self and my friends!

coincidentally I recall reading Traffic being referred to as 'prog' once.......


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

Chicago Transit Authority 1st and 2nd album Derek and the Dominos


----------



## Armanvd (Jan 17, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> There are of course numerous bands missing due to the poll format. Starting with those from the 80s and later (not just prog metal but also e.g. Marillion, IQ, Mars Volta), but also basically anything not from the UK or US, such as the Italians (e.g. PFM, QVC, Banco), Canadians (e.g. Harmonium, Maneige) and Dutch (e.g. Focus, Kayak). Even for the UK, a band like Camel should have been on the list.


Thank You For Mentioning Camel. Sometimes I Think I'm The Only One Here Who Likes Camel.
For Anyone Who May Wanna Check Out Camel:
1999 - Rajaz
1974 - Mirage
1976 - Moonmadness
1975 - The Snow Goose
1984 - Stationary Traveller
2002 - A Nod And A Wink

Andrew Latimer Is An Very Very Emotional Guitarist Who Wrote Some Of The Most Heart Breaking Solos Like:
Lawrence (From Rajaz)
Stationary Traveller (From Stationary Traveller)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

chill782002 said:


> The French produced some very interesting prog in the mid-late 70s and early 80s.
> 
> Here are two fairly obscure bands that are favourites of mine:


Sounds like late 60's/early 70's Zappa


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is a ranking of the "100 greatest prog rock artists"

https://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsprog-x.html


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Nobody except me voting for Roxy Music. That's because you don't know their first albums, I'm sure.

Or maybe, considering Jim's remark that calling Roxy progrock would have been a shock in his young days, you don't think it's progrock. I agree to a certain extent, it was a considerable revolution at the time. I remember first hearing _Virginia Plain_ in 1972 and it hit me as a bullit for being so absolutely new (and great).






The same happened with _Pyjamarama_ some months later.






The sound of their first year(s) is so completely unique and avant garde, I'll have to give you _Ladytron_ as well.






And the great orgasmic _In every dreamhome a heartache_.






To me Roxy Music is on the crossroads between a great many genres: art rock, progrock, punk, avant garage, etc. I think they're one of the most unique bands ever (till Ferry took over).


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Sounds like late 60's/early 70's Zappa


Yeah, I see what you mean. The Eider Stellaire has quite a heavy Mahavishnu Orchestra influence as well I think.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Genesis and Yes. "Tales" is one of my favourite rock albums of all times.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Casebearer said:


> Nobody except me voting for Roxy Music. That's because you don't know their first albums, I'm sure.
> 
> Or maybe, considering Jim's remark that calling Roxy progrock would have been a shock in his young days, you don't think it's progrock. I agree to a certain extent, it was a considerable revolution at the time. I remember first hearing _Virginia Plain_ in 1972 and it hit me as a bullit for being so absolutely new (and great).
> 
> ...


Yes, it's that amalgam of styles which made Roxy Music unique and, as a result, nigh-on impossible for me to lump in with the prog crowd because of the diversity of musical factors at work at any given time. Once they were devoid of Eno's wild card talents they became ever more conventional (maybe also partly due to Brain Fury's parallel solo career) but remained good up to and including the _Siren_ album. An interesting inclusion for the poll, but I can't see them as a prog group in my mind's eye.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Yes and it's not even close


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Does Tangerine Dream count?
If so, them. Froese/Franke/Baumann lineup, that is.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Does Tangerine Dream count?
> If so, them. Froese/Franke/Baumann lineup, that is.


to me that music (Tangerine dream, Klaus Schulze) is definitely not prog. It's cosmic music, something closer to ambient, psychedelic music or even new age, but progressive is another thing.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Prog Archives begs to differ, and lists them as prog.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

norman bates said:


> to me that music (Tangerine dream, Klaus Schulze) is definitely not prog. It's cosmic music, something closer to ambient, psychedelic music or even new age, but progressive is another thing.


_I_

Its prog in my book


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

chill782002 said:


> Premiata Forneria Marconi - Storia Di Un Minuto (1972)
> 
> View attachment 94571
> 
> ...


Three gems right there. Actually the first two I'd say are masterpieces of "rock" and L'isola is just a great album, albeit a bit flawed. PFM is one amazing band.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Prog Archives begs to differ, and lists them as prog.


progarchives has a lot of stuff that it's difficult to consider progressive rock. I mean, I'm with Zappa who said that progressive rock should be progressive music but usually the definition of progressive means elaborate suites with different parts, complex rhyhthms, a certain classical influence. The blues influence tends to disappear. Sometimes it's not progressive music at all. Genesis, King Crimson, Yes, that kind of stuff. Not slow droning music.


----------



## MissKittysMom (Mar 2, 2017)

Gentle Giant and Camel should both have been in the poll. Both were/are seriously great prog bands. Caravan and Hatfield and the North have been mentioned already, but National Health needs to be there as well.

Some American prog recognition is in order, too:
Dixie Dregs
Happy the Man (and their follow-on, Oblivion Sun)
Kansas
Spirit (prog precursor)

If Soft Machine and Mahavishnu made the poll, then that opens the door for fusion bands:
Weather Report
Return to Forever
Bruford (and his follow-on jazz groups, grouped under Earthworks)
Santana
Herbie Hancock (esp. Head Hunters)
Jean-Luc Ponty

Some other top recommendations:
Renaissance
Univers Zero (chamber rock, classical instruments, heavy influence from Stravinsky and Bartok)
Thinking Plague
Birdsongs of the Mesozoic


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I have never been particularly fond of prog rock: bands like Yes, Genesis and King Crimson have never impressed me by their music. Many bands I even hate, like Marillion. From the poll list I like Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, Jethro Tull and Procol Harum though but perhaps that's not true prog rock (or is maybe the album Sgt. Pepper's by The Beatles also prog rock?).

Yet my favorite album of the last years or so is the last album from the Swedish prog metal band Pain of Salvation: I find the combination of prog rock and metal very well done. Both genres improve each other brilliantly: the prog rock gives brains to the metal and the metal gives some balls to the prog rock. BTW, true fans of Pain of Salvation like the older albums more but I find these older albums too much prog rock with all the imperfections of the genre: it is the injection of metal that makes the music of Pain of Salvation fun to listen for me.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I see a lot of discussion of the definition of prog rock in this thread. I tend to distinguish three types of pop/rock that pretends to go beyond the regular or traditional pop/rock song (and thus make music which one would not expect to see in the hit charts):

prog rock : rock that wants to be musically complexer and more interesting (sometimes directly influenced by classical music)

art rock : rock that wants to be modern art (and is more inspired by modern art than by classsical/modern music so it doesn't have to be musically complex, e.g. The Velvet Underground)

jazz rock : rock that is musically more complex with a focus on instrumental solos and virtuosity (usually directly influenced by or overlapping with jazz)

From the poll list bands like Pink Floyd and Roxy Music are actually more art rock (yet Atom Heart Mother is typically prog rock I would say) and Mahavishnu Orchestra is more jazz rock.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

chalkpie said:


> PFM is one amazing band.


Saw them play about 6 months ago in LA, albeit with 3 new members.

You can't believe what kind of energy and skill the original guys (approaching 70 yo!) have!

Amazing show!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

MissKittysMom said:


> Gentle Giant and Camel should both have been in the poll. Both were/are seriously great prog bands. Caravan and Hatfield and the North have been mentioned already, but National Health needs to be there as well.
> 
> Some American prog recognition is in order, too:
> Dixie Dregs
> ...


A list of wonderful bands!

Also, don't forget Pedal Giant Animals, another Happy the Man offshoot.

I love that you include some avant prog bands like, Thinking Plague and Univers Zero. Not a lot of prog fans like that sort of stuff.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

norman bates said:


> to me that music (Tangerine dream, Klaus Schulze) is definitely not prog. It's cosmic music, something closer to ambient, psychedelic music or even new age, but progressive is another thing.


That's fine with me. I consider a lot of their music closer to those styles indeed (Tangerine Dream's Zeit is ambient before Brian Eno coined the term).
However, not all of their music is slow and droney. In fact, they started out making a sort of experimental rock influenced by Pink Floyd and what not. Klaus Schulze was a member of Tangerine Dream before he became a solo artist. Their rock influences also show in some later albums. Then there's the closely related artist and guitarist Manuel Göttching/Ash Ra Tempel, who is also borderline rock/cosmic music.
So in the end they're all a bit of both worlds. I guess that's why I like them so much since I'm generally bored with "regular" rock music and annoyed by singing and distorted guitars.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^Its prog to me


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DeepR said:


> That's fine with me. I consider a lot of their music closer to those styles indeed (Tangerine Dream's Zeit is ambient before Brian Eno coined the term).
> However, not all of their music is slow and droney. In fact, they started out making a sort of experimental rock influenced by Pink Floyd and what not. Klaus Schulze was a member of Tangerine Dream before he became a solo artist. Their rock influences also show in some later albums. Then there's the closely related artist and guitarist Manuel Göttching/Ash Ra Tempel, who is also borderline rock/cosmic music.
> So in the end they're all a bit of both worlds. I guess that's why I like them so much since I'm generally bored with "regular" rock music and annoyed by singing and distorted guitars.


Yes, I remember that Tangerine Dream's first album was a different thing, onestly it's a lot of time that I don't hear it but still I remember something closer to... maybe Pink Floyd, anyway more a psychedelic album than a progressive one. I agree about Zeit, I would definitely consider it ambient music. Actually I would probably say the same for a lot music produced by Klaus Schulze.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^Its prog to me


Jazz is what made some rock interesting. 
Whenever I hear some jazz, I call it jazz from now on


----------



## Zellibrung (Jun 9, 2017)

I'm surprised there are so few votes for ELP here.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Would you agree DSOTM is more back to the pop traditions while The Wall is more progressive rock?


No, both albums contain elements of both- to my ear most of Brick is of a more comerical style than the dark side
Staying Alive! damn the disco


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

In a similar vein my favourite version of owner of a loney heart id ny Zappa lol


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> No, both albums contain elements of both- to my ear most of Brick is of a more comerical style than the dark side
> Staying Alive! damn the disco


That was entertaining. Well done,


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> No, both albums contain elements of both- to my ear most of Brick is of a more comerical style than the dark side
> Staying Alive! damn the disco


I've always wondered if those teeth are real. They should've called themselves The Bee Teeth.


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

My favorite is definitely Rush. For those that gave up on them in the mid 80's, they came back around to a guitar driven sound by the Counterparts album and got heavier than they ever were.

Some of my other favorites would be King Crimson, ELP, and Jethro Tull, all amazing bands. I was really into Pink Floyd when I was a teenager, but it just didn't last. I haven't listened to Floyd in probably over 20 years. They made some great albums, but I just can't listen to them anymore.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

T Son of Ander said:


> My favorite is definitely Rush. For those that gave up on them in the mid 80's, they came back around to a guitar driven sound by the Counterparts album and got heavier than they ever were.
> 
> Some of my other favorites would be King Crimson, ELP, and Jethro Tull, all amazing bands. I was really into Pink Floyd when I was a teenager, but it just didn't last. I haven't listened to Floyd in probably over 20 years. They made some great albums, but I just can't listen to them anymore.


I never could get into Floyd and others that much. King Crimson though is a different story.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

So far we have:
1. King Crimson
2. Yes
3. Pink Floyd
4. Genesis
5. Soft Machine/Mothers of Invention

I think I can live with that, although I would rate Soft Machine much higher.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> So far we have:
> 1. King Crimson
> 2. Yes
> 3. Pink Floyd
> ...


I agree. I like all of those bands but Soft Machine deserves to be higher up. "Third" is one of my all-time favourite albums and they were an amazing live outfit at the time that was recorded. This is documented by the "Noisette" release on Cuneiform which is made up of the rest of the January 4, 1970 show at the Fairfield Halls in Croydon. "Facelift" on "Third" is spliced together from this performance (although "Facelift" isn't included on the "Noisette" release) and another performance a week later at Mothers Club in Birmingham. I love pretty much all of their output though, even the more maligned late 70s stuff, although none of the original line up was still involved at that point.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> So far we have:
> 1. King Crimson
> 2. Yes
> 3. Pink Floyd
> ...


I agree. On the other hand, Soft Machine was sometimes as much a jazz band as a rock band, at least in my favorite phase, 3-5. If not for the presence of King Crimson, wouldn't they be the only one on the list who did extensive unscripted improv on stage?


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

norman bates said:


> Some of my absolute favorites (Hatfield and the north and Caravan) are not in the list. And I'm surprised that Van Der Graaf Generator and Gentle Giant are not in the poll, since are usually considered two of the most important bands in the genre.


Exactly. .


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Norman Bates: "Some of my absolute favorites (Hatfield and the north and Caravan) are not in the list. And I'm surprised that Van Der Graaf Generator and Gentle Giant are not in the poll, since are usually considered two of the most important bands in the genre."



Dr Johnson said:


> Exactly.


Yes. And if space is an issue, Uriah Heap and the Moody Blues (who were a pretentious version of the Beach Boys) could go.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Much as I like early Roxy Music, I don't think they qualify as prog.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I agree. It was very fresh at the time, so it must be different. I don't mind not calling it prog, but I hate it when it's called Glam Rock. That sounds far too cheap. Shall we call it New Prog then?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Casebearer said:


> I agree. It was very fresh at the time, so it must be different. I don't mind not calling it prog, but I hate it when it's called Glam Rock. That sounds far too cheap. Shall we call it New Prog then?


Thar gets too close to neo-prog, which is an established sub-genre (Marillion, IQ, Arena, Pendragon etc).

ProgArchives uses the sub-genre "Crossover prog" for acts that combine prog aspects and popular music. Examples are Radiohead, Moody Blues, Supertramp and Roxy Music. Personally I would prefer the term "Pop prog". Or Art Rock. :devil:


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Casebearer said:


> I agree. It was very fresh at the time, so it must be different. I don't mind not calling it prog, but I hate it when it's called *Glam Rock.* That sounds far too cheap. Shall we call it New Prog then?


Agreed. They don't deserve to be lumped together with Gary Glitter and The Sweet. Not sure about New Prog.

I think "art rock", suggested by, er, Art Rock, fits the bill.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> Thar gets too close to neo-prog, which is an established sub-genre (Marillion, IQ, Arena, Pendragon etc).
> 
> ProgArchives uses the sub-genre "Crossover prog" for acts that combine prog aspects and popular music. Examples are Radiohead, Moody Blues, Supertramp and Roxy Music. Personally I would prefer the term "Pop prog". Or Art Rock. :devil:


In my opinion the first three or four Roxy albums - when they mattered - don't qualify for Crossover prog because they don't crossover to popular music. So Pop prog is just as bad as Glam Rock, or even worse, but Art Rock I can live with to a great extent although it sounds a bit too polished and not revolutionary enough. It leaves out the raw (punkish/anarchistic) elements of early Roxy. I'll post this video again to illustrate the Roxy I'm referring to.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ they were prog early on before Eno left


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Casebearer said:


> In my opinion the first three or four Roxy albums - when they mattered - don't qualify for Crossover prog because they don't crossover to popular music. So Pop prog is just as bad as Glam Rock


From the first four albums, _Do the strand_ was a top50 hit in the Netherlands and Germany, and _Street life_ made the UK top10, while _All I want is you_ went to #12 there. From the same time period the non-album tracks _Virginia plane_ made #4 in the UK and _Pyjamarama_ was another UK top10 hit. They were pop enough to chart regularly.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

The stats back up what Art Rock says. Here in England I recall Roxy Music for a period during the 1970s being as much popular with the single-buying teenyboppers as they were with the album-buying rock crowd - in that aspect they were no different to David Bowie, T. Rex, Mott the Hoople and (briefly) Sparks, really. 

All those acts at that time had a wide enough appeal both musically and visually to accommodate a wide cross-section of fans, hence their successes in the singles as well as the album chart. The fanbase for what were considered prog bands was far narrower and when using the parameters of the time your typical adherent to the genre would never call Roxy Music a prog band in a million years, however inventive and diverse the group happened to be in its early days.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Well allright I see what you mean. They had a few hits. I suppose it comes down to what you call pop music and if you define that by some sort of musical criterion or by chart success. I suppose I primarily have some musical criterion and mainly look at their body of work, not a few separate songs. 

Do they call Yes Crossover Prog also then? They had several hits as well.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Limiting bands to one category like ProgArchives does is of course always tricky. Yes, Yes had hits (as did Genesis, ELP, and a number of other prog giants). I think the main difference is that they had hits relatively late in their career, whereas bands like Roxy Music, Supertramp, Radiohead, Kayak and others listed as crossover prog charted from an early stage in their career onwards. It also depends on which country charts you look at. Yes had a number of (mostly minor) hits in the USA in 1971/1972, but did not chart in their native UK until 1977, when they had already released 8 albums, 6 of which made the album top10.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> Well allright I see what you mean. They had a few hits. I suppose it comes down to what you call pop music and if you define that by some sort of musical criterion or by chart success. I suppose I primarily have some musical criterion and mainly look at their body of work, not a few separate songs.
> 
> Do they call Yes Crossover Prog also then? They had several hits as well.


Don't forget Jethro Tull also - they had a few "hits"


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

By now I think filing bands into categories requires multicriteria evaluation :lol:


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I think I would also prefer filing bands into categories regardless of their commercial succes but that's just me.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Its hard to beat the first two King Crimson, the first five ELP, early Yes, and some of Genesis up to about 1978. I don't care what anyone says but you just can't.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

regenmusic said:


> Its hard to beat the first two King Crimson, the first five ELP, early Yes, and some of Genesis up to about 1978. I don't care what anyone says but you just can't.


Yeah in the Wake of, is my fav KC album


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

regenmusic said:


> Its hard to beat the first two King Crimson, the first five ELP, early Yes, and some of Genesis up to about 1978. I don't care what anyone says but you just can't.


As discussed earlier in this thread, I would argue that some of the prog the Italians produced in the early 70s is equal to any of these bands' output. With reference to the bands mentioned here:

King Crimson - My favourite album of theirs is probably "Larks' Tongues In Aspic" but I like all of their output up to and including "Three Of A Perfect Pair". I can live without the later stuff from the 90s onwards though.

ELP - Never been a huge fan of theirs but I do enjoy "Brain Salad Surgery".

Yes - I consider their "main sequence" albums to be "The Yes Album" through to "Relayer" inclusive. The first two albums had some good moments but were a little patchy as I guess they hadn't really found their sound yet. "Going For The One" and "Tormato" were a bit too poppy for me, "Drama" wasn't really Yes (in my opinion) and their output after that was (again in my opinion) dangerously close to AOR.

Genesis - Anything up to and including "Wind and Wuthering" is fine by me, albums after that went the same way as Yes, rather too poppy for my taste. To be fair though, a lot of prog rock bands changed their sound after punk came along.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> The stats back up what Art Rock says. Here in England I recall Roxy Music for a period during the 1970s being as much popular with the single-buying teenyboppers as they were with the album-buying rock crowd - in that aspect they were no different to David Bowie, T. Rex, Mott the Hoople and (briefly) Sparks, really.
> 
> All those acts at that time had a wide enough appeal both musically and visually to accommodate a wide cross-section of fans, hence their successes in the singles as well as the album chart. The fanbase for what were considered prog bands was far narrower and when using the parameters of the time your typical adherent to the genre would never call Roxy Music a prog band in a million years, however inventive and diverse the group happened to be in its early days.


I suspect you and I might well share approximate dates of birth as your post reflects my immediate memories of the music of that period and as I pointed out earlier my immediate contemporaries at the time would have been amazed to read that Roxy were a prog band!

oddly enough I cannot remember Pink Floyd even being referred to in that way either !


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

jim prideaux said:


> I suspect you and I might well share approximate dates of birth as your post reflects my immediate memories of the music of that period and as I pointed out earlier my immediate contemporaries at the time would have been amazed to read that Roxy were a prog band!
> 
> oddly enough I cannot remember Pink Floyd even being referred to in that way either !


Well, Jim, I can recall at least two girls in my middle school class (names withheld to protect the guilty) having 'Roxy Music' boldly emblazoned on their pencil cases next to the perhaps more predictable declarations of pre-teen affection such as 'Donny Osmond 4 ever' and 'I luv David Cassidy' - that should give you a clue! I myself hadn't got into music by then - it was football, football, football.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Well, Jim, I can recall at least two girls in my middle school class (names withheld to protect the guilty) having 'Roxy Music' boldly emblazoned on their pencil cases next to the perhaps more predictable declarations of pre-teen affection such as 'Donny Osmond 4 ever' and 'I luv David Cassidy' - that should give you a clue! I myself hadn't got into music by then - it was football, football, football.


I suspect therefore that you may be slightly younger than me (you devil you!).There has always been an interesting ambiguity about Roxy. On the one hand they accidentally flirted with teenage fandom, on the other seen by many as the epitome of 'art rock' (I have a copy of Michael Bracewell's book about them on the shelves primarily because it is staggeringly entertaining in it's pretension) I remember once when a very good friend of mine (1977) was resolutely dismissive when I mentioned the possibility of buying Country Life or Siren....the first two albums specifically and then Stranded (just) were permissible at that point.... as we looked around for the arty precursors of punk etc.......but to reiterate-they were never 'prog'.

(interesting you should mention football...this was at a stage in history where even in the 'hotbed' that is the N.E. there was a very sharp divide between the serious music fan and sport...intriguing to look back to those days as I have had a season ticket for an under achieving mess for years now!)

footnote-how times change..listening to Brahms 3rd as I type this


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Yes Album< is by far my fav Yes album but then my fav Prog is Zappa from Freak Out to One size fits all......


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

It gets pretty blurry. Tull has been called blues, folk rock, prog rock, and metal. If Tull belongs here, so does Traffic.

Roxy is prog rock method with a glam rock image like Bowie, and links rock evolution into diversified genres. Both Roxy and Crimson (and Bowie) were influences on Talking Heads. The beat goes on.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Wish I could revote. I'd pick: Pink Floyd, Henry Cow, Soft Machine, Roxy Music, and King Crimson in that order. If Captain Beefheart and Zappa count they are #1 and #2


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

I vote "other" for Gentle Giant! and for Premiata Forneria Marconi.

My first introduction to amazing counterpoint 

Early Phish has some good counterpoint to... this is the stuff I was listening to in my youth, before Beethoven kicked everyone's a$$


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Only one mention of _Focus_ (by ArtRock)! They were supreme musicians and the front-man Thijs van Leer was mad as a hatter. There are some excellent video of them on youtube. I particularly like this one:






And this one with a brilliant jazz flute and hammond organ intro:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^I quite often spin Focus Albums on my turntable always a good listen- like the Hamberger Concerto


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Excellent musicians and separate phragments of their music are interesting but composition wise they tend to be boring imo.


----------



## childed (Jul 15, 2017)

1 King Krimson (Island - imho the best prog album)
2 ELP (especially thanks for Pictures from exhibition)
3 Pink Floyd (Atom heart mother my lovely composition)


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

I've got all of the bands in this list in my collection (Roxy to a lesser extend), personally from the list I go:

*Henry Cow*
*The Mothers*
*Uriah Heep* (cause I really got into them this year)

Other bands I would add would be:
The Residents
Mars Volta
Thinking Plague
Samla Mammas Manna
Magma
Art Zoyd
Flower Kings
Ruins
Van Der Graaf
Gong
Goblin
Guru Guru
Univers Zero
Kings X

etc


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Samla Mammas Manna - Great band and a personal favourite of mine. Their 1973 album, "Måltid" (Mealtime), is superb. Sort of a cross between Frank Zappa, The Mahavishnu Orchestra and traditional Swedish folk music. 

While we're on the subject of Swedish prog, Älgarnas Trädgård's 1971 opus "Framtiden Är Ett Svävande Skepp, Förankrat I Forntiden" ("The Future Is A Hovering Ship, Anchored In The Past") is also very good, similar to early Pink Floyd in some ways but also with a strong folk influence.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I haven't listened to this one for quite a while and had forgotten how good it is. The band is Argentinian and the album was released in 1976. Vocals are in Spanish but, if you don't speak that language, you can just think of the voice as another instrument. Highly recommended to fans of Yes' "Relayer" album, which was clearly a big influence.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I'm very fond of this spesifc lineup of King Crimson:






Fripp is being very spooky on that video... not only because of staring to camera, but he looks exactly like a guy from my office.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Has no-one mentioned the wonderful Welsh band, Man? Man were a criminally underrated band and were brilliant live. I was lucky that I got to see them so many times (about 6 or 7). Also spent a wonderful day with the band at the Leeds Fforde Green Hotel, back in the 80s, cos I turned up so early for their gig. Deke and the boys took me for lunch (for which I helped them put their equipment in the venue) then I sat thru their soundcheck, had a few beers with them then watched the gig. They even arranged for a guy from their fan club to give me a lift back to Manchester. Top guys.






Btw, totally agree about Focus. Incredibly talented musicians. Jan Akkerman is an amazing guitarist.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Man were great. "Be Good To Yourself At Least Once A Day" is a classic.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I've got a Man record here somewhere I'll have to dig it out


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Eskaton - 4 Visions (Full Album)

No prog band is that much better than this obscure album.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ariel still does it for me for obscure Prog


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

This thread makes me think that there are some songs in prog that are just great, and it's senseless really to say they are inferior to music by the "greatest bands." I think classical music is the same way. Couperin's Les Barricades is a good example. Is that in any way inferior to a composer most would say is greater, how can one diminish it's value? Here is an example in Prog.





Novalis - Wunderschätze (1976)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

go Mothers go ...................


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

"Sommerabend" is an excellent lp.
Side two, simple & lazy. Pastoral. Like a good dream.


----------



## The Deacon (Jan 14, 2018)

" Procol Harlem"


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2018)

Amazingly, quite easy for me. KC, Yes and ELP.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I voted for Genesis, because I listened to them most and the first 5 albums or so are exquisite. I am missing Gentle Giant or Camel on the list
PS: only after I voted did I notice that I could have chosen 3, the other 2 would be Moody Blues and King Crimson.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I voted *Yes*, *King Crimson* and Other - why was *Gentle Giant* left off?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

A 4 year old thread back from the dead!

I'll post on it anyway.

Any poll about the best prog, and doesn't include: Gentle Giant, not a single Italian band (PFM, Banco, Il Balletto di Bronzo, Area...), but includes Roxy Music and Uriah Heep, is invalid. Not saying those are band bands, I am a pretty big Roxy fan. But they are art-rock, not prog. Uriah Heep was a good early heavy rock band, that sort of touched on prog a bit.

But seriously, some of the best prog from the 70's came from Italy, and there is still loads of great Italian prog bands of the contemporary era.

Glad to see one avant-prog band, Henry Cow made the poll. But Universe Zero, Art Zoyd, are equally good avant-prog.

I also think Magma should be on the list.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> why was *Gentle Giant* left off?


and Van der Graaf Generator, Hatfield & the North, and National Health.



Simon Moon said:


> I also think Magma should be on the list.


Yup.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I overlooked Gentle Giant at the time, but I agree they are one of the top. My 3 would be King Crimson, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Gentle Giant.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I overlooked Gentle Giant at the time, but I agree they are one of the top. My 3 would be King Crimson, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Gentle Giant.


I've never thought of Mahavishnu as Prog Rock - but Fusion Jazz.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Time for Best Prog Rock Bands MkII?


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Azol said:


> Time for Best Prog Rock Bands MkII?


Art Bears
Motor Totemist Guild
U Totem
5uus
Thinking Plague
Cassiber
Science Group
Univers Zero
Present
Stormy Six
Aksak Maboul 
News From Babel
This Heat


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Azol said:


> Time for Best Prog Rock Bands MkII?


What is "MkII?"


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Why does there have to be a best band? They're all different.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Why does there have to be a best band? They're all different.


Just ignore that and choose which you like the best. Or do you like them all the same?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Roxy Music is the only band I don't listen to. And I'm not much of a Uriah Heep fan. I like all the rest.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I voted for YES. 

King Crimson aren't prog rock  - one of my all time favourite bands!

Roxy Music, another of my all time favourites are art-rock!

Uriah Heep, progrock? FFS!


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Why does there have to be a best band? They're all different.


From that list, my preferred band is King Crimson closely followed by Roxy Music. But they are not 'prog rock'.

The best (my preferred) 'prog rock' band is YES. That's why I voted for them and not the others.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I didn't read the rubric - I could have chosen three. Would have added ELP & Genesis.

I'm not going to go through the whole list, but my third favourite band on that list 'Soft Machine', and they are jazz/jazz-rock, not even remotely prog!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Jay said:


> Art Bears
> Motor Totemist Guild
> U Totem
> 5uus
> ...


These are all the bands I didn't discover until the internet. I just listened to Spoors by The Science Group a few weeks ago. That is a great album. I don't know if ReR Megacorp still has the sale going but you could buy four titles with free shp for 20 pounds. I bought a bunch of the avant prog titles.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> I voted for YES.
> 
> King Crimson aren't prog rock  - one of my all time favourite bands!
> 
> ...


King Crimson are usually cited as being one of the first Prog Rock bands along with Yes and Gentle Giant. Here is how the Wikipedia article on them begins: "King Crimson are a progressive rock band formed in 1968 in London, England. They exerted a strong influence on the early 1970s progressive rock movement and continue to inspire subsequent generations of artists across multiple genres."


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> King Crimson are usually cited as being one of the first Prog Rock bands along with Yes and Gentle Giant. Here is how the Wikipedia article on them begins: "King Crimson are a progressive rock band formed in 1968 in London, England. They exerted a strong influence on the early 1970s progressive rock movement and continue to inspire subsequent generations of artists across multiple genres."


Bollox to Wikipedia, they don't know what they're talking about


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I voted for Genesis when I first encountered this poll.
Nowadays I don't listen to them too much, I think over exposure definitely played a part. I'd say my top 4 are:

Gentle Giant
Yes
Genesis
Pink Floyd


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Has anybody read any books on these bands? I heard that the Sid Smith book on KC was very good. I normally don't read rock music books because I'm too busy trying to educate myself on other topics.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

^^ no order on that list.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Has anybody read any books on these bands? I heard that the Sid Smith book on KC was very good. I normally don't read rock music books because I'm too busy trying to educate myself on other topics.


Close to the Edge: The Story of Yes by Chris Welch is good (if slightly outdated, but it covers the most important period anyway)


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Has anybody read any books on these bands? I heard that the Sid Smith book on KC was very good. I normally don't read rock music books because I'm too busy trying to educate myself on other topics.


I've read quite a few down the years. If your interested in Pink Floyd at all, I'd recommend this ..........


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> Bollox to Wikipedia, they don't know what they're talking about


Since you haven't given any reason why King Crimson is not a Prog Rock band, actually, I think Wikipedia merely confirms what I've always thought and heard from interested others since the band came into existence.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Since you haven't given any reason why King Crimson is not a Prog Rock band, actually, I think Wikipedia merely confirms what I've always thought and heard from interested others since the band came into existence.


And Wikipedia is only includes information reliably sourced, like this: "In 1969, the original King Crimson influenced and altered the approach of contemporaries such as Yes and Genesis." Shteamer, Hank (1 October 2019). "King Crimson's '21st Century Schizoid Man': Inside Prog's Big Bang". Rolling Stone.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Objectively speaking, Mahavishnu or Mothers should be winning this.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> Bollox to Wikipedia, they don't know what they're talking about


Well, sure, bollox to Wikipedia. But it should be obvious that most of KC's rep has nothing whatever to do with jazz. Are you talking about a particular era of KC? Anyway, I'm curious about your thinking on this.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> But it should be obvious that most of KC's rep has nothing whatever to do with jazz.


I wanna know who's spouting' this nonsense. Who said their rep is connected with jazz?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> I wanna know who's spouting' this nonsense. Who said their rep is connected with jazz?


Sorry, I misread. You were talking about Soft Machine and I agree with your assessment.

So does KC fit into some other established category? Would you classify them? And if so, how? They have always been my favorite on the list and I play some of their music regularly.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry, I misread. You were talking about Soft Machine and I agree with your assessment.
> 
> So does KC fit into some other established category? Would you classify them? And if so, how? They have always been my favorite on the list and I play some of their music regularly.


I wouldn't like to try to categorise KC! My _instincts _tell me they're definitely not prog. But then I can't even define prog!!
KC have been part of my musical life for approaching 50 years, but I never got to see them live. LTIA is a desert Island disc for me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> I wouldn't like to try to categorise KC! My _instincts _tell me they're definitely not prog. But then I can't even define prog!!
> KC have been part of my musical life for approaching 50 years, but I never got to see them live. LTIA is a desert Island disc for me.


LTA is my favorite KC. I saw the tour for that album in Pittsburgh. I saw them the next year at the Stanley-Warner Theater, which is now the opera house in Pittsburgh. A good bit of that concert is on The Great Deceiver box set. Most recently I saw the Septet in Philadelphia.

I currently play (guitar) and sing "Book of Saturday" close to note for note, although I have to wing it a bit on the final verse. I've transcribed all the parts of "Exiles" and used to have all of the acoustic guitar part under my fingers. And, of course, "Schizoid Man" and a few other things.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> LTA is my favorite KC. I saw the tour for that album in Pittsburgh. I saw them the next year at the Stanley-Warner Theater, which is now the opera house in Pittsburgh. A good bit of that concert is on The Great Deceiver box set. Most recently I saw the Septet in Philadelphia.


I'm envious!



> I currently play (guitar) and sing "Book of Saturday" close to note for note, although I have to wing it a bit on the final verse. I've transcribed all the parts of "Exiles" and used to have all of the acoustic guitar part under my fingers. And, of course, "Schizoid Man" and a few other things.


...... and impressed!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> I wouldn't like to try to categorise KC! My _instincts _tell me they're definitely not prog. But then I can't even define prog!!
> KC have been part of my musical life for approaching 50 years, but I never got to see them live. LTIA is a desert Island disc for me.


What is it about KC that you think does not qualify them as prog? Sure, Fripp hated labels, and would be the first to chastise anyone that called them a prog band, but how are they that different than the other bands that could be labeled as prog bands?

Sure, categorizing music is always a tricky business. But, by all the various telltale attributes that the vast majority of prog fans use to define prog, KC has all of those attributes.

Prog is not a style, nor is even a genre, but I find it pretty easy to use the term in the same way that US Justice Potter Stewart did when asked to define porn, "I know it when I see (hear it)".

Prog is typically defined as music with all or most of the following (especially when compared to mainstream rock):

Very high level of musicianship, complex song structures, complex time signatures, unusual (for rock) chord progressions, avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge structure, long form 'pieces', dynamic drama, classical, jazz, world music influences, improvisation, etc.

Are these not the usual attributes associated with prog? If not, please let me know what is?

I can go down that list, and have no problems checking off all those boxes for KC, and also for YES, PFM, Museo Rosenbach, National Health, GG, Magma, Univers Zero, Deus ex Machina, Anglagard, etc, etc...


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Sid Smith's KC book is quite good; he's knowledgeable & had access to Fripp and other main players.

Two general Prog histories I recommend are Ed Macan's _Rockin' The Classics_ and Paul Stump's _The Music's All That Matters_.

Genre _is_ tricky, but I'm OK with Prog as a genre. I like Wittgenstein's take on it, foregoing a single definition in favor of a concept of "family resemblance," in which multiple exemplary features are present to one degree or another.

I visualize multiple rings of relative "progginess" rippling out from a Big Bang point of exemplary-ness; I'd put KC and some others at that point and, say, Camel and Nektar a couple/few of rings out.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I love so many of these. On my list of Top 100 Favorite Artists I have these prog bands (with their respective ranking):

#5: Opeth
#6: King Crimson
#10: Yes
#12: Tool
#24: Dream Theater
#25: Marillion
#26: Gentle Giant
#30: King's X
#31: Rush
#36: Van der Graaf Generator
#37: Fates Warning
#38: Genesis
#43: Pink Floyd
#52: Porcupine Tree
#55: Queensryche
#59: The Mars Volta
#60: Anathema
#62: Big Big Train
#63: Kayo Dot
#67: Jethro Tull
#69: Enslaved
#74: The Flower Kings
#82: Cynic
#89: Agalloch
#91: Caligula's Horse
#94: Transatlantic

For anyone who wants to see my full list (with my commentary): https://www.sputnikmusic.com/list.php?memberid=1093750


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> I currently play (guitar) and sing "Book of Saturday" close to note for note...


When are you going to try your hand at learning Fracture? That's the song that made me realize I was never going to be a virtuoso guitarist!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> What is it about KC that you think does not qualify them as prog? Sure, Fripp hated labels, and would be the first to chastise anyone that called them a prog band, but how are they that different than the other bands that could be labeled as prog bands?
> 
> Sure, categorizing music is always a tricky business. But, by all the various telltale attributes that the vast majority of prog fans use to define prog, KC has all of those attributes.
> 
> ...


While I agree with this post I also think it's worth noting the historical context of how prog came to be and evolved. A distilled version would be that The Beatles invented (or at least popularized/innovated) psychedelic music, which started seeing rock getting mixed with a lot of other influences (classical, jazz, and world music especially). Prog itself was a development/evolution of psychedelic rock, and you can even see this in the proto-King Crimson band Giles, Giles, & Fripp. Listen to the GG&P album and then In the Court of the Crimson King and you can hear how psychedelic rock starts to become prog by incorporating more distinctly classical and jazz influences.

The thing about prog as a genre is that, of course, it's always been more of a philosophical approach to rock (and metal) music as opposed to any single, identifiable sound. All of the early prog bands sounded utterly distinct from each other in large part because they were all pulling from very different influences outside of rock music. King Crimson (along with Zappa) were arguably the prog band pulling most from jazz and modern classical, which is probably why they sound even MORE different from Yes and Genesis. Most of the contemporary retro-prog bands (Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Big Big Train) tend to be primarily looking back at Yes and Genesis for inspiration, while King Crimson's influence has been more diffuse among the later avant-garde bands and progressive acts in other genres, like Tool, or the entire math rock scene (which mostly stems from KC's work on Discipline).


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> What is it about KC that you *think* does not qualify them as prog?


I said my instincts tell me - pay attention


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Did listeners argue about the "prog" status of bands before the internet? I have no recollection. KC was never the same thing. They evolved over the years with their different incarnations. Bruford said he left Yes because he had no interest in performing the big prog epic, Close To The Edge, on stage every night. He was more attracted to the challenge of musical surprise and improvisation as a member of KC.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> When are you going to try your hand at learning Fracture? That's the song that made me realize I was never going to be a virtuoso guitarist!


I've used the main figures from Fracture as exercise material, along with the suite from Giles, Giles, and Fripp and the fast part of LTA part 1, but I'm nowhere close to the right tempos. I'm not going to be a virtuoso either. Nearly all of my current playing is classical rep on piano and has been for many years.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> What is it about KC that you think does not qualify them as prog?


I have no problem with the classification, but I just think of it as alternative art music.

One reason I favor King Crimson so strongly is the balance of instrumental versus vocal music. On my favorite albums there's singing for 10% or less of the playing time. Given the sheer volume of doggerel one finds in prog lyrics (Yes especially), less is usually better, although the lyrics by Richard Palmer-James and some of Sinfield's are excellent. Belew's are always entertaining at least.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I have no problem with the classification, but I just think of it as alternative art music.


In fact, what is now called "Prog" was originally called "Art Rock" in the late 60s/70s, because of the classical music element/influence. The "Art Rock" genre label would re-surface in the late 70s/80s in reference to bands that had little, if any, connection to Prog.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

No love for Rush?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> No love for Rush?


That's still probably more than there would be for Kansas.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've always thought the definition of Progressive Rock was rock that blended Classical composition with a rock group instrumentation. With that definition (let me know if it's accurate and correct me if I'm wrong) I was always confused on how bands like Genesis and Pink Floyd could be considered Progressive Rock.
> 
> Shouldn't Queen be on this list too?





Art Rock said:


> A useful link for the definition: Progarchives.
> 
> Both Genesis and Floyd have classical influences as well by the way.
> 
> Queen had prog tendencies early on.


I've always gone with the "disease" approach to determining whether a band or an artist is "Prog"

Prog varies greatly, and has a great many things that MAY be included as elements of "Prog" or "Progressive Rock". *Prog Archives* lists a great many of them, from multi-movements, epics, fusion of rock and some other genre, use of non-rock instruments, etc. Further there are "types" of Prog (Symphonic Prog, Classical Prog, etc.).

As a former doctor, a diagnosis consists of a complete history and complete physical examination. When a patient comes in with a health issue, you listen as the symptoms are described, and you note what test results are gathered, whether it's temperature, respiration, bowel sounds, elevated or depressed levels of specific things in the blood, range of motion, locations of pain, and levels and quality of pain.

Described in the most simple way, when a patient has enough symptoms of a particular disease, it probably IS that disease (so you do specific tests to confirm the diagnosis). Take COVID-19, for instance. Patient A may have loss of taste, sniffles, and fever, while Patient B is having respiratory issues, sniffles, and a dry cough. They both have COVID, yet they share very few symptoms.

Same with *Prog*; if there's enough of the elements, then it's prog. *The Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Yes*, and *King Crimson* are all *Prog*, yet they do not sound much alike, but they all have enough symptoms/elements of *Prog*, even though they may not share that many of those elements.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

HenryPenfold said:


> I said my instincts tell me - pay attention


Fine, to each their own.

But, I still am unable to get past the fact, that KC has all the hallmarks of music that is labeled as prog, and almost no hallmarks of music that fits any other label.

And, even though, they sound quite different than their 70's contemporaries, that alone is not a reason to label them as something other than prog. I mean, that itself, the fact that most prog bands sounded quite a bit different than their contemporaries, is one of the hallmarks of prog, to try to sound unique.

After all; Magma, Henry Cow, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, and many more bands, that are clearly classified as prog, or some subgenre of prog, sound nothing like KC, YES, Genesis, etc.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

pianozach said:


> I've always gone with the "disease" approach to determining whether a band or an artist is "Prog"
> 
> Prog varies greatly, and has a great many things that MAY be included as elements of "Prog" or "Progressive Rock". *Prog Archives* lists a great many of them, from multi-movements, epics, fusion of rock and some other genre, use of non-rock instruments, etc. Further there are "types" of Prog (Symphonic Prog, Classical Prog, etc.).
> 
> ...


I think your last paragraph pretty much nails it.

I think those things that most people would agree with, as the 'symptoms' of prog, are:

Musical complexity, very high level of musicianship, deep and broad ranging emotional and intellectual content, (usually) long form, avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge song structure, avoidance of 'hooks', improvisation, more than the usual (for most rock) 3 chords. I am sure there are more.

If a band checks off most, if not all, of these symptoms, that seems like a strong indicator they are prog.

I can't see why: YES, Genesis, PFM, Univers Zero, National Health, Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, Gentle Giant, et al., would be 'diagnosed' as prog, but KC would not.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I have no problem with the classification, but I just think of it as alternative art music.
> 
> One reason I favor King Crimson so strongly is the balance of instrumental versus vocal music. On my favorite albums there's singing for 10% or less of the playing time. Given the sheer volume of doggerel one finds in prog lyrics (Yes especially), less is usually better, although the lyrics by Richard Palmer-James and some of Sinfield's are excellent. Belew's are always entertaining at least.


Bad lyrics have never been a problem for me.

While good lyrics can add to a good piece, bad lyrics (for me), never detract from a good piece.

I just tend to view vocals as another instrument, adding another layer of melody to the music.

Maybe that is one reasons, besides the shear quality of the music, why I rate Italian prog so highly. My understanding of Italian is almost none, but since I look at the vocals as another instrument, I don't care that I do not understand them.

The best Italian prog (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, PFM, Museo Rosenbach, Area, Deus ex Machina, Il Balletto di Bronzo, and quite a few more), rivaled the best prog from the UK, based entirely on the quality of the music itself.

And then there is Magma, one of the best prog bands, ever (IMO), and they sing in a made up language.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> The best Italian prog (Banco del Mutuo Soccorso, PFM, Museo Rosenbach, Area, Deus ex Machina, Il Balletto di Bronzo, and quite a few more), rivaled the best prog from the UK, based entirely on the quality of the music itself.


No Goblin?

overly precious British-ness has always been a problem w Prog, Genesis being the worst offender


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

No love for Soft Machine? Amateurs.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> No love for Soft Machine? Amateurs.


No, but Roxy Music included. Definitions of "Prog" somewhat flexible.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> No Goblin?
> 
> overly precious British-ness has always been a problem w Prog, Genesis being the worst offender


What does "overly precious Britishness" mean?


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> No love for Soft Machine? Amateurs.


Yup. Volume II.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Forster said:


> No, but Roxy Music included. Definitions of "Prog" somewhat flexible.


I wouldn't fight to the death over Roxy Music, but Uriah Heep?!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Rick breaks down Rush's Xanadu.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Rick breaks down Rush's Xanadu.


Rush is stupendous. Growing up in Canada their name was ubiquitous and I do recall hearing Closer to the Heart on the radio and hating it. This was during the early 90s when I was a massive Nirvana fan and grunge was king. I didn't really discover them until recently and can now see why the band is so revered.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Rush is stupendous. Growing up in Canada their name was ubiquitous and I do recall hearing Closer to the Heart on the radio and hating it. This was during the early 90s when I was a massive Nirvana fan and grunge was king. I didn't really discover them until recently and I can now see why the band is so revered.


Ha! Being older I was of the opposite opinion. I heard 2112, and A Farewell To Kings in the late 70s and loved it. I was totally indifferent to grunge and Nirvana in the 90s.


----------



## KevinJS (Sep 24, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Ha! Being older I was of the opposite opinion. I heard 2112, and A Farewell To Kings in the late 70s and loved it. I was totally indifferent to grunge and Nirvana in the 90s.


Same here. I eagerly awaited every new Rush album for years on end. I guess the difference is that I'm still totally indifferent to grunge. Sometimes, there's no need for second thoughts.

I can understand people who take issue with Geddy's voice but it never offended me. The scream in Cygnus X-1 Book 1 is one of the (literal) high spots.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

KevinJS said:


> Same here. I eagerly awaited every new Rush album for years on end. I guess the difference is that I'm still totally indifferent to grunge. Sometimes, there's no need for second thoughts.
> 
> I can understand people who take issue with Geddy's voice but it never offended me. The scream in Cygnus X-1 Book 1 is one of the (literal) high spots.


Yeah, Geddy's voice was partly why I didn't like the band all those years ago-it wasn't fashionable. I suppose it's an acquired taste but objectively speaking, he's a great singer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Geddy has an amazing voice. As has been said, once you get used to it, you realize how flawless it is. I do love Rush but also love my favorite Grunge--the two easily coexist within my cranium.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Red Terror said:


> Yeah, Geddy's voice was partly why I didn't like the band all those years ago-it wasn't fashionable. I suppose it's an acquired taste but objectively speaking, he's a great singer.


Same here. Geddy's voice, to me, was a turn-off.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> Geddy has an amazing voice. As has been said, once you get used to it, you realize how flawless it is.


He was great in his younger days. His live singing in the last decade was pretty hard to endure. For my ears he was at his best on 2112, and A Farewell To Kings. Listen to the little known song, Lessons, from 2112. Phenomenal singing on a tune with an infectious groove and some excellent rhythm guitar from Alex.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Rush must have just passed me by. I can see how Geddy Lee's voice would have irritated me had I paid any attention. When I first listened to one of the tracks here, I though I was listening to Grace Slick-meets-Jon Anderson!


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Porcupine Tree should be on that list imo


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> Rush must have just passed me by. I can see how Geddy Lee's voice would have irritated me had I paid any attention. When I first listened to one of the tracks here, I though I was listening to Grace Slick-meets-Jon Anderson!


Rush is a taste I acquired relatively late in life, but I had been previously impressed by the fierce loyalty of Rush fans--one, a co-worker, told me that listening to Rush had saved his life. I can't say the same thing, but I now revere the band. Here is a live performance of their later classic _Subdivisions_, with Geddy Lee as Wizard-in-Chief on both bass and keyboards. The devotion to Rush is seen in the audience reaction. I happen to love this song and performance......


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Forster said:


> Rush must have just passed me by. I can see how Geddy Lee's voice would have irritated me had I paid any attention. When I first listened to one of the tracks here, I though I was listening to Grace Slick-meets-Jon Anderson!


+1. They passed me by as well, and I've heard only a few songs. But, based on those few songs I would never have considered them Prog back in the day; just a mildly interesting hard rock three-piece with some proggy touches here and there.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jay said:


> +1. They passed me by as well, and I've heard only a few songs. But, based on those few songs I would never have considered them Prog back in the day; just a mildly interesting hard rock three-piece with some proggy touches here and there.


I agree. Rush's sound is considerably different from almost all other "Prog" bands--enough so to put them into a different category entirely--another _sui generis_ band like, say, The Police. If you listen to more Rush, you may find them more than mildly interesting.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

The results so far are interesting.

KC and Yes in 1st and 2nd place. That's pretty predictable.

Pink Floyd seems a surprising 3rd place. Yes they could *be* Prog, but they weren't your stereotypical _version_ of Prog. They weren't a stereotypical version of _anything_. Good for them.

ELP down at 6th place, behind Floyd, Genesis, and The Mothers, seems an awful waste. Emerson really took the concept of reimagining Classical music to its extremes. But I suppose it goes with the territory . . . there are so many different kinds of Prog, that it's difficult to compare different bands.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

pianozach said:


> The results so far are interesting.
> 
> KC and Yes in 1st and 2nd place. That's pretty predictable.
> 
> ...


The definition of Prog then is as flexible a vessel as can be imagined--it can expand to enclose almost any band within it, it seems. Prog is one of the most poorly-defined concepts as to render its utility almost worthless. Tull? Moody Blues? Roxy Music?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The 'progressive' in rock refers to innovation; cutting edge. All the contemporary 'prog' bands obsessed with the 70's are merely retarded.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The definition of Prog then is as flexible a vessel as can be imagined--it can expand to enclose almost any band within it, it seems. Prog is one of the most poorly-defined concepts as to render its utility almost worthless. Tull? Moody Blues? Roxy Music?


Quite true.

Prog certainly isn't a genre, nor is it a style.

With other types of music, it is much easier to get an overall feel for what the vast majority of artists within that genre sound like, with just a very few examples from said genre. Blues, country, hip-hop, etc, all have very well defined stylistic attributes that define them.

But prog does not have those some sort of stylistic similarities. It has more to do with music structure that defines it as prog, than a style. Such as: very high level of musicianship, complexity, (usually) long form compositions, a deeper and broader level of emotional and/or intellectual content, no need for a 'hook', avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge structure. But other than most or all of those, all other bets are off.

Yes does not sound anything like Magma, which does not sound anything like Univers Zero, which does not sound anything like National Health, which does not sound anything like Pain of Salvation, which does not sound anything like Gong, etc, etc, etc. Yet, they are all prog.

But Buddy Guy, BB King, Joe Bonamassa, Gary Moore, all have much more in common. Sure, they have their own individual voices on their instruments, but they are all still playing minor pentatonic scales, in 4/4.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> The 'progressive' in rock refers to innovation; cutting edge. All the contemporary 'prog' bands obsessed with the 70's are merely retarded.


I never quite looked at it that way.

I always looked at in the way Steve Hackett once did, calling it "permissive rock", in that it allows musical influences and techniques from music typically thought of as being outside of rock. Classical, jazz, folk, world music, electronica, etc.

As long as it has those attributes I mentioned in my last post (very high level of musicianship, complexity, (usually) long form compositions, a deeper and broader level of emotional and/or intellectual content, no need for a 'hook', avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge structure, non-standard (for rock) arrangements, etc), I am fine using the progressive descriptor, even if it sounds somewhat retro.

While I am always in search of something new and different sounding, that fits those attributes I mentioned, I am still fine with retro sounding prog, too.

As long as the musicians play their instrument in their own voice, write great melodies, play with a very high level of musicianship, with a high level of complexity, good improve skill, etc, I don't mind at all that it may sound like it comes from the 70's.

Innovation and originality are certainly great. But that doesn't eliminate retro sound prog from being great too.

Lucky for me, there is more than enough new and retro sounding prog being made, that the biggest problem, is keeping up. I guess that is what is known as a high quality problem.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> I never quite looked at it that way.
> 
> I always looked at in the way Steve Hackett once did, calling it "permissive rock", in that it allows musical influences and techniques from music typically thought of as being outside of rock. Classical, jazz, folk, world music, electronica, etc.
> 
> ...


I guess? But the retro schtick seems antiquated to me-what's the point? I'd much rather listen to something fresh and interesting like *Levin Torn White* than to the retroactive *Wobbler*.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I took "prog" to mean musically exploratory. That is, prog bands didn't simply write "songs", but explored, either lyrically or musically, but usually both, themes, ideas, stories that went beyond trad love songs and traditional song forms. This entailed extended instrumental passages, solos, improvisation, unusual rhythms/time signatures, enlarged instrumentation etc, etc.

I see no reason why the 60s and 70s shouldn't be revisited (any more than the 1780s to the 1830s shouldn't.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> I took "prog" to mean musically exploratory. That is, prog bands didn't simply write "songs", but explored, either lyrically or musically, but usually both, themes, ideas, stories that went beyond trad love songs and traditional song forms. This entailed extended instrumental passages, solos, improvisation, unusual rhythms/time signatures, enlarged instrumentation etc, etc.
> 
> I see no reason why the 60s and 70s shouldn't be revisited (any more than the 1780s to the 1830s shouldn't.)


Given this definition of Prog, many of my favorite songs that deal with faraway places and times, real or imagined, are Prog. These would include _Kashmir, Cortez the Killer, Theme for an Imaginary Western, Saint Charles, Those Were the Days,_ so many more. These fall into the category of Romanticism Rediscovered by yet another generation of artists, in this case Rock artists. My own term for this genre is Rock Art Song.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> My own term for this genre is Rock Art Song.


All music is art regardless of quality.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> All music is art regardless of quality.


I am using the term Art Rock Song as a parallel genre to _Lieder_. though the lyrics are more geared to Romanticism. And I have provided a template of such songs to help define the genre


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

A tough call, indeed!

*King Crimson*, *Genesis* (I prefer the earlier years & consider it to meet my view of what "Prog" is for me better than the later years, and *Pink Floyd* (which was really two different bands, Syd Barrett & then Roger Waters/David Gilmore).

There are certainly others, *Mothers of Invention* would have garnered more long term respect in general by avoiding the "Comedy Music" that some found offensive, and some still do. I still find a good portion of if enjoyable, but on the other hand, there is a 'sub-genre' in that idiom that I have finally found offensive as well. Frank was proud to call himself an "Equal Opportunity Basher"


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Chibi Ubu said:


> A tough call, indeed!
> 
> *King Crimson*, *Genesis* (I prefer the earlier years & consider it to meet my view of what "Prog" is for me better than the later years, and *Pink Floyd* (which was really two different bands, Syd Barrett & then Roger Waters/David Gilmore).
> 
> There are certainly others, *Mothers of Invention* would have garnered more long term respect in general by avoiding the "Comedy Music" that some found offensive, and some still do. I still find a good portion of if enjoyable, but on the other hand, there is a 'sub-genre' in that idiom that I have finally found offensive as well. Frank was proud to call himself an "Equal Opportunity Basher"


Zappa has garnered enough respect-more so than any other 'rock' artist ever has.

This poll could have been much more concise:

*Mahavishnu Orchestra
Frank Zappa
Soft Machine
Robert Wyatt
Gentle Giant
Rush
ELP*

The rest of the bands are dispensable.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

Red Terror said:


> Zappa has garnered enough respect-more so than any other 'rock' artist ever has.
> 
> This poll could have been much more concise:
> 
> ...


That's a fair statement from anyone with the perspective by most if not all people in this Forum. I'm not so sure that it translates to the general populace.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> The rest of the bands are dispensable.


The omission of "IMO" is, no doubt, an oversight. Henry Cow is dispensable?!
Now, Rush, _they're_ dispensable...IMO.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

*Strawbs *should have definitely been on there.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Jay said:


> The omission of "IMO" is, no doubt, an oversight. Henry Cow is dispensable?!
> Now, Rush, _they're_ dispensable...IMO.


I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Rush had a prog period for a several albums. But event then, they weren't very good (IMO).

But isn't listing which bands from the poll are dispensable, just another way of answering the OP's poll question in the first place?

As far as I'm concerned, Magma, PFM, Banco, Area, National Health, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, all belong on a list of "best prog bands".

As far as I'm concerned, and poll for best prog band, that doesn't include at least one Italian band (but does include Uriah Heep) is null and void.

I also don't think Genesis or King Crimson are dispensable.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> As far as I'm concerned, Rush had a prog period for a several albums. But event then, they weren't very good (IMO).


Rush's prog albums weren't good? Please expand.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> I agree with that. As far as I'm concerned, Rush had a prog period for a several albums. But event then, they weren't very good (IMO).





Red Terror said:


> Rush's prog albums weren't good? Please expand.


You know, even though I'm not fanatical about *Rush* (I have only one Rush track in my digital library), I can recognize just how *"good"* they are.

_*"Not very good"*_*?* 

Bull pucky and horse feathers.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> As far as I'm concerned, and poll for best prog band, that doesn't include at least one Italian band (but does include Uriah Heep) is null and void.


Not only Uriah Heep, but my list wouldn't include Roxy Music (as much as I like them), and I'd include Gentle Giant, VdGG, Hatfield and The North, National Health, Matching Mole, the Italians, Gong, Caravan, Can, Egg, and the RIO guys before some of the others on the list.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> Rush's prog albums weren't good? Please expand.





pianozach said:


> You know, even though I'm not fanatical about *Rush* (I have only one Rush track in my digital library), I can recognize just how *"good"* they are.
> 
> _*"Not very good"*_*?*
> 
> Bull pucky and horse feathers.


Well...

Not sure how my subjective personal tastes can be "Bull pucky and horse feathers". I clearly stated that my dislike for Rush as a prog band is my personal opinion.

But, to clarify, for me, even at their "progiest", they were much too close to mainstream rock. Sure they were better musicians than the vast majority of mainstream rock bands, and yes, their songs were more sophisticated than most mainstream rock, but they really weren't that far from most rock bands, to my ears.

Which is certainly a large part of their appeal for their fans. They could still 'rock out', and sing along to Rush's songs, and still appreciate their greater sophistication. And the radio friendly aspect of much of Rush's music doesn't hurt them, either.

But for me, not being a fan of any sort of mainstream rock, when I listen to the various subgenres of prog, the less it sounds like mainstream rock, the better.

As far as I'm concerned, they pale in comparison (by my criteria), to bands with comparable or better musicianship, but write even more complex and sophisticated music. For example: King Crimson, PFM, Yes, Gentle Giant, Banco, Area, Anglagard, Deus ex Machina, and many more.

And the above list does not even include the avant-prog and Zeuhl subgenres or prog (and to a lesser degree, Canterbury), which are so far from mainstream rock, I am not even sure if they are even within the purview of rock at all.

Avant-prog: Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Thinking Plague, Aranis, Present, Henry Cow, etc.

http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=36

Zeuhl: Magma, Setna, Eskaton, Zao, Koenji Hyakkei, etc.

http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=11&top=100

So, when I say that Rush aren't a very good prog band, I am not making a judgement on whether they are a good rock band. They certainly are. But, not being a fan of mainstream rock, I am completely uninterested in that aspect of their music. I am saying, that for my tastes, they are not very good at the prog aspect of their output.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> As far as I'm concerned, they pale in comparison (by my criteria), to bands with comparable or better musicianship, but write even more complex and sophisticated music. For example: King Crimson, PFM, Yes, Gentle Giant, Banco, Area, Anglagard, Deus ex Machina, and many more.
> 
> And the above list does not even include the avant-prog and Zeuhl subgenres or prog (and to a lesser degree, Canterbury), which are so far from mainstream rock, I am not even sure if they are even within the purview of rock at all.
> 
> ...


I am not certain how you arrive at the conclusion that Rush's music and musicianship aren't up to par with those of bands like Crimson and Yes-mere conjecture. As for Zeuhl, have you really listened to Magma's music? What's so progressive about using repetitive martial beats in every song? Magma's a marching band.

And what to say about the aforementioned avant-prog bands? Poor man's chamber music.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Rush -- and Kansas, Steely Dan, Supertramp, Chicago, Porcupine Tree, Dream Theatre, The Mars Volta, Tool, Transatlantic, and others -- were too successful to be "progressive." You have to be poor and overlooked to be real ProgRock. :wink:

The next tier (Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson, Camel, VdGG, Moodies, Pink Floyd (late), ELP... draw this line wherever you want) were successful, maybe TOO successful to be qualified applicants, except to non-afficionadoes.

And they weren't as experimental-slash-advanced as the "real" progressive bands like Hatfield, Egg, Gentle Giant, Floyd (early), Gong, Univers Zero, ZNR, Art Zoyd, Shub Niggurath, Frank Garvey, Jean-Baptiste Barriere, Crazy Backwards Alphabet, Thinking Plague, Hamster Theater, Aranis, [your favorite band here].

All lines are drawn in sand and can be moved at will by the listener. Suffice it to say, Rush is the very shallow end of the progrock pool.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The above posts surely demonstrate that the category of Prog is very poorly and loosely defined, as contrasted with genres like Disco and Doo-***. Prog can be best examined as a wastebasket all-embracing concept that includes mostly bands (other than Yes and Genesis) with tiny sales figures due to the opacity of their music. I like individual songs by various artists, but find it difficult to embrace the vast spectrum of "Prog" groups as members of an even minimally inclusive heading (other than low sales figures).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> Suffice it to say, Rush is the very shallow end of the progrock pool.


Not sure what that means but they wrote great songs and are as musically accomplished as any other bands in discussion. And saying KC or Yes weren't experimental or advanced is not displaying much knowledge of their music or what they contributed. For my ears, Allan Holdsworth was the most advanced of any of the guitarists that worked in the prog / fusion genre.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> The above posts surely demonstrate that *the category of Prog is very poorly and loosely defined*, as contrasted with genres like Disco and Doo-***. Prog can be best examined as a wastebasket all-embracing concept that includes mostly bands (other than Yes and Genesis) with tiny sales figures due to the opacity of their music. I like individual songs by various artists, but find it difficult to embrace the vast spectrum of "Prog" groups as members of an even minimally inclusive heading (other than low sales figures).


Ain't THAT the truth?

The problem is that so many different musical aspects can make a band (or a song) "prog" or "progressive".

One can identify two diverse bands as being "Prog", but those bands may sound nothing alike, as they each embody different aspects of Prog.

*ELP* sounds nothing like *Yes*. 
*The Moody Blues* sound nothing like *Kansas*. 
*Jethro Tull* sounds nothing like *Gentle Giant*.

As a result there are many subgenres of Prog and Prog Rock. (I once had a discussion where it was theorized that Prog, Prog Rock, Progressive Rock, and Progressive were all DIFFERENT genres).

According to *ProgressiveRockCentral*, "Progressive rock subgenres include avant-garde rock, Canterbury, jazz-rock and fusion, Krautrock, neoprog, post rock, progressive folk, progressive electronic, progressive psychedelic, rock andaluz, Rock In Opposition (RIO), rock progresivo italiano, space rock, symphonic rock, and Zeuhl."
."

LOL, Zeuhl. "I am the Keymaster, are you the Gatekeeper?"

I think they may have left out a few too. Or is Neoprog what I'd call Prog Metal?

Whatever.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

pianozach said:


> Ain't THAT the truth?
> 
> Whatever.


LOL. Yeah. Prognerds arguing about terminology is what keeps the internet running.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> The above posts surely demonstrate that the category of Prog is very poorly and loosely defined,


Or is it just poorly and loosely applied?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> Or is it just poorly and loosely applied?


At this point, who can tell?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> At this point, who can tell?


And not all Krautrock comes from Germany, and not all Canterbury comes from England, and not all RIO is in opposition to anything. It's all just one garbled mess.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Not sure what that means but they wrote great songs and are as musically accomplished as any other bands in discussion. And saying KC or Yes weren't experimental or advanced is not displaying much knowledge of their music or what they contributed. For my ears, Allan Holdsworth was the most advanced of any of the guitarists that worked in the prog / fusion genre.


OK Boomer. Rush fans are nothing if not passionate.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

NoCoPilot said:


> OK Boomer. Rush fans are nothing if not passionate.


You don't need to be a fan to analyze what they're doing musically.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The more I think about it, one of the best, if not THE best, Prog band was Weather Report.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro (Dec 10, 2017)

I think Rush and Dream Theater should be on the list.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> The more I think about it, one of the best, if not THE best, Prog band was Weather Report.


They were a great band but not prog rock which is the subject of the thread.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

ClassicalMaestro said:


> I think Rush and Dream Theater should be on the list.


I used to be totally indifferent to Dream Theater but lately I have been watching their live shows on YouTube. The best one I found is live in Chile 2005. A very inspired performance with a great set list and wild crowd. I don't care for the speedy solos but John Petrucci has loads of heavy riffs and they write good vocal melodies. And they can play their butts off for hours on end.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> They were a great band but not prog rock which is the subject of the thread.


I see their style as more Prog than Jazz. They are certainly as much Prog as Mahavishnu Orchestra. But it was just an opinion of mine and not worth defending or debating in this thread.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Happy to notice there are other proggers here, too!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I see their style as more Prog than Jazz. They are certainly as much Prog as Mahavishnu Orchestra. But it was just an opinion of mine and not worth defending or debating in this thread.


Just out of curiosity, what albums of theirs do you enjoy the most?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Just out of curiosity, what albums of theirs do you enjoy the most?


I generally enjoy the pre- and post-Jaco periods more than his albums - although I don't think they made a weak record, except their last, maybe. Mysterious Traveler, Tale Spinnin' and Black Market are probably my favorites. Also Sportin' Life is a good late recording.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I generally enjoy the pre- and post-Jaco periods more than his albums - although I don't think they made a weak record, except their last, maybe. Mysterious Traveler, Tale Spinnin' and Black Market are probably my favorites. Also Sportin' Life is a good late recording.


I don't think I've heard the last two. I have a self titled release from the early 80s. I pretty much enjoy all of them up to that record.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> Happy to notice there are other proggers here, too!


I'm such a progger, I answer to it on this forum.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

For any fans, Adrian Belew Trio is on tour in America this July and August. Quite a few east coast dates plus some in the mid west.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> The more I think about it, one of the best, if not THE best, Prog band was Weather Report.


Not prog. WR were jazz-fusion…


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Siouxsie and the Banshees


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

3 years ago, I said Genesis was the best prog band. Nowadays I rarely listen to prog, and hardly ever to Genesis. Of the bands listed, Pink Floyd is my favorite, but it doesn't feel right to laud them as the best prog band... I don't think they really embody the quintessence of prog. Maybe Genesis, Yes, and Gentle Giant.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not interested in singling out one band as the best. Lately I've taken a break from classical music and I've been listening to rock bands. Marillion, Echolyn, District 97, IQ, and Haken. Marillion is great if you are song oriented. They owe an obvious debt to Genesis but are a great band in their own right. I recommend their albums Clutching At Straws, and Seasons End. Echolyn's Suffocating The Bloom is also a great album. They are tremendous musicians and vocalists but the emphasis on songwriting is as strong as the instrumental prowess. If you like some crunchy riffs I would recommend District 97. A great band from Chicago. They have a lot of videos on YouTube and they have a great female vocalist.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> 3 years ago, I said Genesis was the best prog band. Nowadays I rarely listen to prog, and hardly ever to Genesis. Of the bands listed, Pink Floyd is my favorite, but it doesn't feel right to laud them as the best prog band... I don't think they really embody the quintessence of prog. Maybe Genesis, Yes, and Gentle Giant.



There's no universally accepted definition as to what Prog is, or what bands fall into the umbrella of Prog.

I tend to see it in terms of a diagnosis: It a band/album/song has enough of the "symptoms" of Prog, it's probably Prog.

*Pink Floyd* doesn't tick off as many _"symptoms"_ as bands like *Yes, ELP, Marillion, PFM, Transatlantic, Alan Parsons, Gentle Giant*, and *Genesis* do, but they have enough to be over the line: They have Epic works (*Atom Heart Mother, Echoes, Shine On You Crazy Diamond*), themed albums (*Animals, The Wall, Wish You Were Here*), out-of-the-box lyrics, studio trickery, sound collages, etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

For those who love classic prog I'd like to recommend some of (what I like to call) retro prog bands. These are essentially modern/contemporary bands who take most of their influence from 70s prog bands. The criticism against them is, of course, that they're just copying or reiterating what's already been done, and while there are prog bands out there still pushing the envelope most of them have taken up metal rather than rock, and they tend to be much tonally harsher and more aggressive, so not everyone's cup of tea. Anyway, here's a selection from a handful of my favorite retro prog:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> I am not certain how you arrive at the conclusion that Rush's music and musicianship aren't up to par with those of bands like Crimson and Yes-mere conjecture. As for Zeuhl, have you really listened to Magma's music? What's so progressive about using repetitive martial beats in every song? Magma's a marching band.
> 
> And what to say about the aforementioned avant-prog bands? Poor man's chamber music.


Again, my statement about Rush's music and musicianship not being on par with those other bands, is my opinion.

My main reasons for not being a Rush fan, as I stated earlier, is that, even at their most progressive, they were still too close to mainstream FM rock. 

And as far as their musicianship goes, Peart was a top quality drummer for sure, but he was not as good as all the fans made him out to be, and he was equaled and surpassed by other drummers.

Lee was a fine rock bass player, but again, there are other prog bass players better.

And Lifeson, started out as a pretty mediocre guitarist, but improved quite a bit over the years. But he never, IMO, broke out of being a pretty straight forward rock guitarist. 

As far as Zeuhl goes, the martial beats you refer to, are only a small part of the genre, and hardly used by most bands in the subgenre. Even Magma didn't use them anywhere near the majority of the time, and less and less as the years went on. And even on the pieces with martial beats, there are still usually passages that do use them. Quite often, Magma would sound as if they belonged to the 'spiritual jazz' genre of the 60's and early 70's. 

And your your statement of avant-prog being 'poor man's chamber music', sounds pretty off base to me. I am a huge fan of the subgenre, and don't think I ever considered it any form of chamber music. Sure, it has influences from contemporary chamber music, but no more so, than King Crimson was influenced by classical of the early 20th century.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> There's no universally accepted definition as to what Prog is, or what bands fall into the umbrella of Prog.
> 
> I tend to see it in terms of a diagnosis: It a band/album/song has enough of the "symptoms" of Prog, it's probably Prog.
> 
> *Pink Floyd* doesn't tick off as many _"symptoms"_ as bands like *Yes, ELP, Marillion, PFM, Transatlantic, Alan Parsons, Gentle Giant*, and *Genesis* do, but they have enough to be over the line: They have Epic works (*Atom Heart Mother, Echoes, Shine On You Crazy Diamond*), themed albums (*Animals, The Wall, Wish You Were Here*), out-of-the-box lyrics, studio trickery, sound collages, etc.


THIS is the groundwork I use when some questionable songs/bands are brought into the Prog question, such as Pink Floyd.

Two bands with questionable Prog "credentials" come to mind.

The first is The Moody Blues. I'm pretty sure that they have enough of the boxes checked to qualify as Prog: Use of orchestra as a significant element of their music, Mike Pinder's use of the mellotron, theme albums, lyrical content that's intellectual, song suites, studio trickery, diverse musical subgenres, etc.

The other is The Beatles. Yeah, they were not Prog, of course, but they're often cited as being an influence on Prog, or even proto-Prog. Obviously, they started off as rockers, and shifted quickly to Pop Rock for their first singles and albums. Still, up until 1966, more than have of their released tracks had some sort of Prog element to it, whether it was harmonies, song structures, unusual doublings, unusual instruments. Granted, there might likely be only ONE Prog "symptom" per song, and that really doesn't reach any sort of Prog bar. Then again, until 1966, there wasn't really any Prog to speak of (although I'm sure someone can mention a few bands, albums, and songs that are worthy of mentioning).

But Rubber Soul and Revolver were released in 1965 and 1966, and the game was changed. Yes, Rubber Soul. 

Drive My Car - oddball time signature on intro, car horn vocals, suggestive lyrics, unique guitar solo
Norwegian Wood - Folk with actual sitar, lyrically vague
You Won't See Me - stacked backing vocals
Nowhere Man - introspective lyrics, a capella intro, unique guitar solo
Think For Yourself - fuzz bass
The Word - pedal point vocal harmonies, worldly lyrics, use of drone
Michelle - foreign phrases, alternate instrumental and vocal sound palette
What Goes On - Nope
Girl - polyphony, use of voice as percussion instrument
I'm Looking Through You - shifting subgenres
In My Life - baroque feel, fake harpsichord in solo
Wait - guitar volume controlled
If I Needed Someone - 12-string guitar
Run For Your Life - double "nope"


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> My main reasons for not being a Rush fan, as I stated earlier, is that, even at their most progressive, they were still too close to mainstream FM rock. And Lifeson, started out as a pretty mediocre guitarist, but improved quite a bit over the years. But he never, IMO, broke out of being a pretty straight forward rock guitarist.


Agreed.



pianozach said:


> The first is The Moody Blues. I'm pretty sure that they have enough of the boxes checked to qualify as Prog:


Proto-Prog, in my view. Not quite there.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> Lee was a fine rock bass player, but again, there are other prog bass players better.


Geddy playing bass far beyond thumping the root of the chord, while singing, while playing synth chords and such with his feet is very impressive. I can't tell you how many musicians I've met who can sing and play guitar without a problem, but can't for the life of them play bass and sing at the same time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> Again, my statement about Rush's music and musicianship not being on par with those other bands, is my opinion.
> 
> My main reasons for not being a Rush fan, as I stated earlier, is that, even at their most progressive, they were still too close to mainstream FM rock.


You're entitled to your opinions of course, but I will say that what you say about them being close to mainstream rock was by design. Rush's explicit intention was to meld the disparate worlds of Cream and Zeppelin-influenced blues rock (that evolved into FM rock) with the progressive tendencies of Yes. 



Simon Moon said:


> And as far as their musicianship goes, Peart was a top quality drummer for sure, but he was not as good as all the fans made him out to be, and he was equaled and surpassed by other drummers.
> 
> Lee was a fine rock bass player, but again, there are other prog bass players better.
> 
> And Lifeson, started out as a pretty mediocre guitarist, but improved quite a bit over the years. But he never, IMO, broke out of being a pretty straight forward rock guitarist.


I think you'd find the vast majority of drummers and bassists disagree with you, and even a lot of Lifeson's stuff is more creative and difficult than it often sounds at first. I actually admire Lifeson's willingness to often play backseat to the rhythm section and focus on more textural qualities. It's an approach that wouldn't become common until over a decade later with other bands that guitars could do much more than just play main-hook riffs and take leads/solos.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Three better than Peart, according to this survey...(if you can stand the ads making the pages jump about)









100 Greatest Drummers of All Time


From rock thunder machines to punk powerhouses, we count down the kings and queens of slam




www.rollingstone.com


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Forster said:


> Three better than Peart, according to this survey...(if you can stand the ads making the pages jump about)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha, those Rolling Stone lists are quite laughable. 50 'great' drummers and no room for Jon Hiseman or Rod Morganstein? I went to a couple of Hiseman drum clinics in the 80s and one was with Cozy Powell. We watched and listened to Cozy and a few session drummers and then Hiseman started talking and playing. Cozy just sat on a drum stool shaking his head as Hiseman ripped into this crazy "Indian rhythm" thing on his 2 bass drums (5 beats on one, 4 on the other). After he'd finished, to rapturous applause from audience and all the drummers present (Simon Phillips and Cozy were clapping wildly and whistling) , my mate (who is a very, very good technical drummer) said "he's just done everything I can't do in 5 minutes and made it look like he could have written a shopping list whilst he was doing it". We met Cozy Powell after the clinic and my mate asked him who he thought was the greatest rock drummer was that he had played with / seen live and he just said "you've just watched him. Jon can play any style at any speed with a touch I could never even get near". Hiseman overheard him talking to us and said to Cozy, "I think you're doing yourself a disservice, Cozy". Cozy just laughed and quipped, "no Jon. You're the best. You make me look like a novice". I've seen a lot of the great drummers live (Peart, Bruford, etc) but Hiseman was an incredible musician. His control of tempo, dynamics and rhythm was perfect and he could play everything from mellow jazzy shuffles to proggy stop/start stuff to powerhouse rock. Of the 'younger' drummers the best I've seen (and multiple times in recent years) is the Pineapple Thief/Crimson/ Porcupine Tree sticksman Gavin Harrison. I've seen him live on numerous occasions now and his drumming makes a massive difference to the sound of the bands he's played in. He plays with a subtlety and precision I've not heard since hearing Hiseman live. Since he's joined Pineapple Thief he's improved the level of musicianship in that band 100%. Bruce Soord said the same thing in a recent Podcast by them. Harrison is a bit up himself but he's a tremendous percussionist. And no 10 minute drum solos (at least with PT)! There's very few live rock bands I've seen where the quality of the drummer's playing is so noticeable that you actually start listening to them instead of the guitarist / vocalist but Harrison is one such player. Even my wife, who knows nothing about drumming said at the last PT gig something like "he's an amazing drummer, isn't he? I find myself watching and listening to him way more than I should." When a member of the rhythm section is that good that they're being noticed you know that they're quality.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Three better than Peart, according to this survey...(if you can stand the ads making the pages jump about)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course these lists are based on influence and historical impact more than technical skills; which is fine, but there are examples of transcendent masters of every instrument that don't achieve much fame/notoriety because they were never apart of world-shaking bands. Bonham, Moon, and Peart, meanwhile, influenced most every rock/metal drummer that came after them either directly or indirectly, hence their 1-3 ranking on that list.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Merl said:


> Haha, those Rolling Stone lists are quite laughable. 50 'great' drummers and no room for Jon Hiseman or Rod Morganstein? I went to a couple of Hiseman drum clinics in the 80s and one was with Cozy Powell. We watched and listened to Cozy and a few session drummers and then Hiseman started talking and playing. Cozy just sat on a drum stool shaking his head as Hiseman ripped into this crazy "Indian rhythm" thing on his 2 bass drums (5 beats on one, 4 on the other). After he'd finished, to rapturous applause from audience and all the drummers present (Simon Phillips and Cozy were clapping wildly and whistling) , my mate (who is a very, very good technical drummer) said "he's just done everything I can't do in 5 minutes and made it look like he could have written a shopping list whilst he was doing it". We met Cozy Powell after the clinic and my mate asked him who he thought was the greatest rock drummer was that he had played with / seen live and he just said "you've just watched him. Jon can play any style at any speed with a touch I could never even get near". Hiseman overheard him talking to us and said to Cozy, "I think you're doing yourself a disservice, Cozy". Cozy just laughed and quipped, "no Jon. You're the best. You make me look like a novice". I've seen a lot of the great drummers live (Peart, Bruford, etc) but Hiseman was an incredible musician. His control of tempo, dynamics and rhythm was perfect and he could play everything from mellow jazzy shuffles to proggy stop/start stuff to powerhouse rock. Of the 'younger' drummers the best I've seen (and multiple times in recent years) is the Pineapple Thief/Crimson/ Porcupine Tree sticksman Gavin Harrison. I've seen him live on numerous occasions now and his drumming makes a massive difference to the sound of the bands he's played in. He plays with a subtlety and precision I've not heard since hearing Hiseman live. Since he's joined Pineapple Thief he's improved the level of musicianship in that band 100%. Bruce Soord said the same thing in a recent Podcast by them. Harrison is a bit up himself but he's a tremendous percussionist. And no 10 minute drum solos (at least with PT)! There's very few live rock bands I've seen where the quality of the drummer's playing is so noticeable that you actually start listening to them instead of the guitarist / vocalist but Harrison is one such player. Even my wife, who knows nothing about drumming said at the last PT gig something like "he's an amazing drummer, isn't he? I find myself watching and listening to him way more than I should." When a member of the rhythm section is that good that they're being noticed you know that they're quality.


Never heard of Hiseman but I'm now interested in checking him out. I agree about Harrison. I've seen him (not in person, but in recorded performances) for Crimson and PT/Steven Wilson and he is, indeed, incredible. Love his interplay with Pat Mastelotto and Jeremy Stacey in the latest King Crimson drum trio: 





I also love many of the more technical metal drummers from the past few decades. Though not everyone's cup-of-tea musically, on raw technique many of them are quite impressive, even if some of them lack the more subtle skills of the above drummers. One example:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Hiseman's jazz solo...check out the dynamics






or Hiseman's noisier Colosseum solo


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

Merl: Love the Cozy Powell story. 

I don't know if these bands were mentioned, but Kenso and Eloy are very good.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Merl said:


> 100 'great' drummers and no room for Jon Hiseman or Rod Morganstein?


...or Mike Giles, Andy McCulloch, Pip Pyle, Pierre Moerlen, Bobby Caldwell, BJ Wilson, Clive Bunker, Dino Danelli, Chris Cutler, Guy Evans, John Weathers, Paul Thompson, Dave Kerman.....


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Jay said:


> ...or Mike Giles, Andy McCulloch, *Pip Pyle, Pierre Moerlen*, Bobby Caldwell, BJ Wilson, *Clive Bunker*, Dino Danelli, *Chris Cutler*, Guy Evans, John Weathers, *Paul Thompson*, Dave Kerman.....


I like the work of a number of those you've mentioned. Hiseman I knew from the one Colosseum album I had back in the late 70s.

If I hadn't first dreamed of being a film director, I was going to be a rock drummer, and the resources on the Drummerworld website was like being a kid in a sweetshop. Now I know that good drummers are ten a penny (look how many artists are happy to use non-famous sessions drummers), it's a) a matter of the style you like and b) a matter of the style of the band the drummer was in. Ringo was never asked to play like Keith Moon...and why would he? It wouldn't have been appropriate. That doesn't mean he isn't a great drummer, just because he never had a massive kit that he could work out like Bozzio or Wackerman.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

What Ringo often did, at a time when it was rare, was to come up with specific parts, rather than "just playing."


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Forster said:


> Three better than Peart, according to this survey...(if you can stand the ads making the pages jump about)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


RS has been a joke for a long time now.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> Again, my statement about Rush's music and musicianship not being on par with those other bands, is my opinion.
> 
> My main reasons for not being a Rush fan, as I stated earlier, is that, even at their most progressive, they were still too close to mainstream FM rock.





Eva Yojimbo said:


> You're entitled to your opinions of course, but I will say that what you say about them being close to mainstream rock was by design. Rush's explicit intention was to meld the disparate worlds of Cream and Zeppelin-influenced blues rock (that evolved into FM rock) with the progressive tendencies of Yes.


Oh, I completely understand it was their design and intention of melding the disparate worlds of Cream and Zeppelin-influenced blues rock (that evolved into FM rock) with the progressive tendencies of Yes.

But you, pointing out the very thing about their approach, that I don't like about them, is not very useful. You are just reiterating the thing I am pointing at as the aspect of their music that I don't like, and saying; "that's how they planned it to sound, didn't they do a good job?".

It's like pointing out to someone who doesn't like Indian food; "but it is the design and intention of the chef to use those specific spices and methods to to get those end results". Even the best Indian chef in the world would not be able to convince them how great the food is, if they don't like Indian food.

I have not been a fan of mainstream rock for decades. The closer music sounds to the mainstream, the more boring I find it.

With all that being said, there are a few Rush songs I still enjoy from the days when I was a fan. Closer to the Heart, Red Sector A, and a few more.



> I think you'd find the vast majority of drummers and bassists disagree with you, and even a lot of Lifeson's stuff is more creative and difficult than it often sounds at first. I actually admire Lifeson's willingness to often play backseat to the rhythm section and focus on more textural qualities. It's an approach that wouldn't become common until over a decade later with other bands that guitars could do much more than just play main-hook riffs and take leads/solos.


Actually, I do think they are all better musicians than the vast majority of mainstream rock musicians. Quite a bit better, actually. But when I compare them to other prog musicians, from all eras, and all parts of the world, there are quite a few that are substantially better. And doing so while playing more complex music than Rush.

Of course, the very thing that made Rush well known, their melding of mainstream rock with prog tendencies, is the very thing that keeps these other prog musicians in relative obscurity, their far less mainstream approach.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> *Simon Moon: *"With all that being said, there are a few Rush songs I still enjoy from the days when I was a fan. Closer to the Heart, Red Sector A, and a few more."


Would I be wrong if you liked these two for their lyrics? If it is so that the lyrics of Rush most appeal, then there are surely dozens more that similarly please. Musically I see your point that Rush's popularity and the ardor of their fan base (I am one) comes from a meld of Prog and mainstream--though singularly Rushian--Rock. I really respect bands that enjoy enormous popularity yet have a quite unique sound--The Police, R.E.M., Talking Heads come to mind. It is, after all, Popular Music.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> Actually, I do think they are all better musicians than the vast majority of mainstream rock musicians. Quite a bit better, actually. But when I compare them to other prog musicians, from all eras, and all parts of the world, there are quite a few that are substantially better. And doing so while playing more complex music than Rush.
> 
> Of course, the very thing that made Rush well known, is the very thing that keeps these other prog musicians in relative obscurity; their melding of mainstream rock with prog tendencies.


Moon, there will always be "better" musicians playing more "complex" music — _always. _That doesn't negate the fact that Rush were an exceptional trio who succeeded in creating blues based rock with progressive elements like few before them. They were not trying to be the next Yes or Magma, though with their consummate skill and talent as musicians, I am sure they could have accomplished it—had that been their intent. Ultimately, Rush were excellent songwriters — something that was/is beyond the grasp of most of your favored bands.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band. 

Apart from the Muffins, the Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands. White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.

How appallingly awful English groups, such as Genesis, Tull and Yes contine to top Prog lists to this day - while far more talented groups, such as Henry Cow, Gentle Giant, and Hatfield and the North, enjoy no such fame or glory - is a complete mystery to me.

Apart from Genesis’ music being desperately dull their 1970s albums are also atrociously produced.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band.
> 
> Apart from the Muffins, the Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands. White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.
> 
> ...


I've never been a fan of excessive ethnic pride, and the so-called "Yanks" also produced Zappa. Nevertheless, we do share a love of Henry Cow and Gentle Giant. I don't know much about Hatfield and the North.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Red Terror said:


> I've never been a fan of excessive ethnic pride. Nevertheless we do share a love of Henry Cow and Gentle Giant. I don't know much about Hatfield and the North.


I’m Irish with a rational antipathy towards perfidious Albion, yet it cannot be argued that they haven't produced the most amazing prog rock groups. Hatfield were formerly Egg and later became National Heath. Dave Stewart (not that talentless weirdo from Eurythmics) is/was a goddam genius… Chapeau, Le Rostbif!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> RS has been a joke for a long time now.


Well I wasn't offering the article as some authoritative source with definitive rankings...it was the first relevant poll I found using a certain well-known search engine. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> I’m Irish with a rational antipathy towards perfidious Albion, yet it cannot be argued that they haven't produced the most amazing prog rock groups. Hatfield were formerly Egg and later became National Heath. Dave Stewart (not that talentless weirdo from Eurythmics) is/was a goddam genius… Chapeau, Le Rostbif!


The relevance of perfidious Albion in this context eludes me. Anyway, National Health were good, as were Colosseum—they should have been part of this poll. Jon Hiseman was a treasure.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band.
> 
> Apart from the Muffins, the Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands. White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.
> 
> ...


The mystery evaporates when we consider that Prog is considered (by most people) to be a subdivision of Popular Music. If one considers it complete esoterica that is only capable of being grasped by an elite, then it becomes a genre utterly _sui generis. _And you can safely continue to be a proud but only outlier.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band.
> 
> Apart from the Muffins, *the Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands*. White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.
> 
> ...


*Kansas*​


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> Oh, I completely understand it was their design and intention of melding the disparate worlds of Cream and Zeppelin-influenced blues rock (that evolved into FM rock) with the progressive tendencies of Yes.
> 
> But you, pointing out the very thing about their approach, that I don't like about them, is not very useful. You are just reiterating the thing I am pointing at as the aspect of their music that I don't like, and saying; "that's how they planned it to sound, didn't they do a good job?".


Fair enough. 



Simon Moon said:


> Actually, I do think they are all better musicians than the vast majority of mainstream rock musicians. Quite a bit better, actually. But when I compare them to other prog musicians, from all eras, and all parts of the world, there are quite a few that are substantially better. And doing so while playing more complex music than Rush.


I just think it's often a difficult thing to judge. For one, I doubt either of us plays drums, keyboards, bass, guitar, and sings; so at most we're just comparing our abilities on what instruments we play with the difficulty of whatever Rush songs we've either learned to play, or at least looked into, and comparing that with all the other music we've bothered to do the same with. We can make semi-educated guess about the difficulty of (and talent required to play) music on instruments we don't play, or even songs we haven't learned; but it's nothing but guess work. I just know (as I'm sure you do) that Lee and Peart especially are revered among bassists and drummers. Part of that is surely because of their popularity, but they've also attracted a lot of interest from musicians over the years, so it's not as if their popularity among non-musician fans alone is fueling the perception that they're virtuosos. I myself play guitar, which is why I commented on Lifeson.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band.
> 
> Apart from the Muffins, the *Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands*. White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, *making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.*







You were saying? I think there's 108 time signature changes in that song (many of them quite complex) and DT, while being Yanks, have arguably been the premiere prog band on the planet for the last 30 years.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You were saying? I think there's 108 time signature changes in that song (many of them quite complex) and DT, while being Yanks, have arguably been the premiere prog band on the planet for the last 30 years.


Terrible example. The Dream Theater guys can certainly play their instruments but they couldn't write an actual song if their life depended on it.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

It just occurred to me that Prog Rock is nothing but Jazz-Rock fusion lite. 😀


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> Terrible example. The Dream Theater guys can certainly play their instruments but they couldn't write an actual song if their life depended on it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Red Terror said:


> It just occurred to me that Prog Rock is nothing but Jazz-Rock fusion lite. 😀


Which is why I suggested that Weather Report was the greatest Prog band ever.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Terrible example. The Dream Theater guys can certainly play their instruments but they couldn't write an actual song if their life depended on it.


You are displaying your ignorance on this one, Red. DT gets tagged as a Prog Metal band but to my ears I don't hear an awful lot traditional prog influence although there is a degree of it in their music. They fuse pop/rock vocal melodies with metal riffs and speedy ensemble sections a la The Steve Morse Band. One of John Petrucci's biggest influences. He worships at the feet of Steve Morse.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> It just occurred to me that Prog Rock is nothing but Jazz-Rock fusion lite. 😀


Nah. There's some overlap, but not really. They share the tradition of rock music but do very different things with it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> It just occurred to me that Prog Rock is nothing but Jazz-Rock fusion lite. 😀


I don't agree. Most of the first generation English prog bands are steeped in traditional European classical music. There's not a whole lot of jazz influence. The exception would be some of the material on King Crimson's Lizard. And a bit of Keith Emerson's piano playing on a few tracks.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

starthrower said:


> You are displaying your ignorance on this one, Red. DT gets tagged as a Prog Metal band but to my ears* I don't hear an awful lot traditional prog influence *although there is a degree of it in their music. They fuse pop/rock vocal melodies with metal riffs and speedy ensemble sections a la The Steve Morse Band. One of John Petrucci's biggest influences. He worships at the feet of Steve Morse.


Their primary classic prog influence was Rush; but they also took inspiration from the proto-prog metal bands of the 80s (Queensryche, Watchtower, Fates Warning) whose prog credentials were mostly in the combination of their technical skills and more ambitious concepts compared to their metal contemporaries.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

For me DT's biggest weakness is their crappy soloing. Petrucci is capable of much better playing but the majority of the time he resorts to unimaginative, speedy scale runs up and down the neck instead of playing melody. He's no Alex Lifeson. But he is a great riffmeister.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

starthrower said:


> For me DT's biggest weakness is their crappy soloing. Petrucci is capable of much better playing but the majority of the time he resorts to unimaginative, speedy scale runs up and down the neck instead of playing melody. He's no Alex Lifeson. But he is a great riffmeister.


Agree, though Petrucci's bad solos are made far worse by the knowledge he can write solos with such panache, as with Under a Glass Moon, or as soulful as The Spirit Carries On.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Their primary classic prog influence was Rush;


Rush is prog? "Classic" no less?!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

pianozach said:


> *Kansas*


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Neil Peart only manages a weedy 7th in this poll 

32 of the best drummers to grace rock 'n' roll. I deliberately selected this poll _because it was by a publication I'd heard of, _(not because Peart didn't top it) but it was well down the list of search results for "best ever rock drummers". I guess NME is no longer one of the best music publications of all time.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> You are displaying your ignorance on this one, Red. DT gets tagged as a Prog Metal band but to my ears I don't hear an awful lot traditional prog influence although there is a degree of it in their music. They fuse pop/rock vocal melodies with metal riffs and speedy ensemble sections a la The Steve Morse Band. One of John Petrucci's biggest influences. He worships at the feet of Steve Morse.


Well and good but they're still nigh unlistenable as far as I am concerned.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Well and good but they're still nigh unlistenable as far as I am concerned.


I ignored them for 30 years but now I like some of their songs. I'm not a fan boy so I don't think Octavarium, or Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence are the masterpieces their die hard fans gush over. Those are my least favorite pieces. But I'm listening to a number of bands I've ignored in the past simply because my brain and ears are tired of the same old bands as great as they are.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Re Petrucci: Roine Stolt is considered among the best prog guitarists. He isn't known for shredding the way Petrucci is. Roine is known for his phrasing and expression.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Guys, unless you’re Japanese anyone producing prog after 1979 is a complete weirdo. While I admire the remastering Steve Wilson did on Gentle Giant’s albums, his own music is 40 years out of date and unworthy of consideration. DT, Rush, Kansas, girls you can put that rubbish in the bin.

Now, let’s get serious here. I want some proper opinions on Soft Machine’s oeuvre:

1st album, a complete mess, poppy pastiche, trash
2nd, wow, a wonderful concept album, where Ayers, Wyatt & Ratledge really hit their straps.
3rd, a prog blueprint, but flabby and apart from two stone cold genius pieces: Outbloodyrageous & slightly all the time.
4th, poor enough fair, apart from Kings and Virtually IV
5th, exceptional with the first three tracks an Apex not seen since 3rd
6th, a total mess - my adorable 🐶 would have produced better work from either orifice 
7th, my absolute favourite, what a work is man
Bundles, Allan Holdswoth is a goddam genius, anything after which is unworthy of consideration…


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

The Soft's first LP is better than you think. Vol.II through Fifth are great. Six and Seven are good but the loss of Dean and then Hopper hurt, and Jenkins is just OK. They jumped the shark with Bundles.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Jay said:


> The Soft's first LP is better than you think. Vol.II through Fifth are great. Six and Seven are good but the loss of Dean and then Hopper hurt, and Jenkins is just OK. They jumped the shark with Bundles.


The 1st given its milieu is undoubtably genius. I’m just listening with younger ears.

6th is garbage. I can’t believe a knowledgeable progger like you finds anyth8ng redemptive in it. They only made 6th to earn a buck and condense 20min opus’ into 3mins.

Bundles is where the Softs tried to become King Crimson. Listen to the Floating World live album to see the genius of what they never quite captured on that album…


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Jay said:


> Rush is prog? "Classic" no less?!


Yes on both accounts. They're second generation classic prog, but that's mostly just because it took them longer than most other classic prog bands to release their first album; they actually formed before most of those bands released their first albums. I've honestly almost never seen people question Rush's status as a prog band, though. Look up any list of the greatest prog bands or prog albums and Rush will be there.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Rush are/were a terrible, cheesy, kitsch band.
> 
> *Apart from the Muffins, the Yanks were completely incapable of producing good prog rock bands. *White Yanks lack a choral and/or folkloric tradition, making them incapable of incorporating complex time signatures into extended medleys.
> 
> ...


Happy the Man, Thinking Plague, 5UU's, Echolyn, French TV, Motor Totemist Guild, Manna/Mirage (Muffins offshoot), Bubble Math, miRthkon, Underground Railroad (Kurt Rongey), Birdsongs of the Mesozoic, Mike Kenneally and Bear for Dolphins, Corima..

And if we are including Canada, there is: Miriordor, Sloche, Nathan Mahl, Et Cetera, Harmonium, Aquarelle, Hamadryad, Maneige, Spaced Out,


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Guys, unless you’re Japanese anyone producing prog after 1979 is a complete weirdo.


You can take out the "Japanese" exception, and also expand that to include all the OG prog bands of the 70s. They're all "weirdos." That's precisely what makes them good and interesting. I mean, Robert Fripp is the weirdest MF'er ever... when he plays guitar he looks like a serial killer trying to spot his next victim in a crowd of faces he feels no remorse for.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Guys, unless you’re Japanese* anyone producing prog after 1979 is a complete weirdo*. While I admire the remastering Steve Wilson did on Gentle Giant’s albums, his own music is 40 years out of date and unworthy of consideration. DT, Rush, Kansas, girls you can put that rubbish in the bin.


I am not sure what being Japanese has to do with it, but...

I guess a lot depends on how one defines prog.

If one defines it as a style of music, similar to the bands of the 70's, then you may be right.

But I don't define it that way. For me, prog is much more about the structure of the music, and much less than any 'surface' style is has. I don't care if it has any of the sonic cues that 70's prog had (Hammond, Mellotron, Moog, Arp 2600, E-Bow, pseudo or legitimately intellectual lyrics, etc), as long as it has the things that make if prog to me. 

Those being, in no particular order: complexity, very high level of musicianship, deep and broad range of emotional content, avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge song format, avoidance of catchy hooks, avoidance of repetitiveness. All of which can be done without sounding like 70's prog is being rehashed at all.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> ...avoidance of verse>chorus>bridge song format, avoidance of catchy hooks, avoidance of repetitiveness.


These are things that not even the 70s prog bands always avoided. Yes is full of catchy hooks, which is one reason they were so successful. There's an argument to be made that all of prog was, in itself, just a footnote to The Beatles, arguably the most truly progressive band ever, and they certainly didn't avoid any of those things. I get that prog is generally defined in opposition to the most common elements of popular music, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can absolutely have prog with catchy hooks and some amount of repetition. Hell, even most classical is repetitive (the sonata form itself is based on repetition!).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I've also found that most that hate Dream Theater have only been exposed to a handful of songs, most likely those that exist to show off their technical chops. Part of that is because they attracted geeky musician types that care about such technical wizardry... however, I very much think DT are one of the most versatile, diverse bands of the last 30 years. They have a wealth of songs that display no technical chops whatsoever. Here's just a handful in a variety of styles:


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Proper Prog, with a classical twinge…


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

OK, I keep forgetting, between *Porcupine Tree* and *Dream Theater*, which one is which. One of them I don't care for much, as they're on the Metal side of Prog. 

But I pretty don't listen to either of them because I can't remember which is the one I like, and which is the one I don't care for much.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

pianozach said:


> OK, I keep forgetting, between *Porcupine Tree* and *Dream Theater*, which one is which. One of them I don't care for much, as they're on the Metal side of Prog.
> 
> But I pretty don't listen to either of them because I can't remember which is the one I like, and which is the one I don't care for much.


Dream Theater is far more metal, Porcupine Tree has a more varied sound.


----------



## Disco (Mar 19, 2020)

from the list PINK FLOYD


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not a big Steve Wilson fan but I bought a copy of In Absentia by Porcupine Tree. Also bought Visions by Haken. I like both a lot. Haken's newer stuff is too metal for my taste.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Proper Prog, with a classical twinge…


Eh, I really don't see what the point of tracks like this are. It's basically a cover of a classical work in a proggy style. I hear this no different than I do metal/shred covers of classical. I think far more interesting are the prog bands/albums/songs, like a lot of King Crimson or Zappa, that took influence from classical but never sought to just cover classical or sound like classical, especially older classical Even Gentle Giant, with their postmodern juxtapositions of Renaissance polyphony and hard rock/blues, are more interesting and what I'd call "proper prog," because that's finding ways to genuinely blend classical and rock.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

pianozach said:


> OK, I keep forgetting, between *Porcupine Tree* and *Dream Theater*, which one is which. One of them I don't care for much, as they're on the Metal side of Prog.
> 
> But I pretty don't listen to either of them because I can't remember which is the one I like, and which is the one I don't care for much.


DT are on the metal side of prog, at least some of their material is (as I said above, DT are quite diverse, but they definitely have a lot of very metal-influenced material); PT are more influenced by classic and neo-prog (especially Marillion, who hasn't been mentioned much in this thread). PT does have some more metal-ish tracks, especially in their newer material, especially much of Deadwing and on tracks like Anaesthetize. Steven Wilson's material is basically a "solo" version of Porcupine Tree, though he's ventured into more pop on his last coupe of albums, not to great results IMO. Wilson became good friends with Mikael Akerfeldt from Opeth and they had some mutual influence on each other, with Wilson influencing Akerfeldt/Opeth to incorporate more classic prog influences and Mikael influencing Wilson to explore more metal styles.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Eh, I really don't see what the point of tracks like this are. It's basically a cover of a classical work in a proggy style. I hear this no different than I do metal/shred covers of classical. I think far more interesting are the prog bands/albums/songs, like a lot of King Crimson or Zappa, that took influence from classical but never sought to just cover classical or sound like classical, especially older classical Even Gentle Giant, with their postmodern juxtapositions of Renaissance polyphony and hard rock/blues, are more interesting and what I'd call "proper prog," because that's finding ways to genuinely blend classical and rock.


Agreed…


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Gentle Giant is one band I feel I'd never tire of. Despite the paucity of material (11 albums amounting to ~6 hours of music, and only about half of that was really prog) every song they wrote was like a rich, complex, finely crafted gem with so many interesting layers. Even their least-good prog songs are never worse than extremely interesting. I love consistently revisiting their discography (at least the first 8 albums) and finding myself attracted to new songs that just washed by me on previous listens. I think during my last trip I came to admire just how beautifully atmospheric a track like this is:


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Gentle Giant is one band I feel I'd never tire of. Despite the paucity of material (11 albums amounting to ~6 hours of music, and only about half of that was really prog) every song they wrote was like a rich, complex, finely crafted gem with so many interesting layers. Even their least-good prog songs are never worse than extremely interesting. I love consistently revisiting their discography (at least the first 8 albums) and finding myself attracted to new songs that just washed by me on previous listens. I think during my last trip I came to admire just how beautifully atmospheric a track like this is:


GG in general and that song in particular were a big influence on Mark E. Smith - note the time signature changes…


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

As far as classic Prog goes, one cannot do better than Mahavishnu, Zappa, GG, Soft Machine, R. Wyatt, ELP, Henry Cow, and Rush. An unbeatable octad.

Let's not bother arguing that Mahavishnu, Zappa, Soft Machine and the Cow aren't prog because they actually embody the very meaning of the term.


----------



## Chibi Ubu (11 mo ago)

In my extensive mp3/m4a/flac/CD/vinyl collection, I have classified Frank Zappa as genre: *Zappa*. I don't think he fits into any other category.📂

I started with the Mothers of Invention in '67 and I followed him to the end in December '93. Oh yeah, I have another genre called *Zappa Tribute*. It's a mix of prog/rock/classical tribute bands. I also classify Zappa in my Classical genre as* Zappa, Frank *as I believe it should be.

We're gonna discuss Miles Davis from exactly the same point of view sometime. That also works for me! Single labels don't work for multi-genre capable musicians.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Lil Ludi’s Top 7 Prog bands & offshoots

*N.B. the qualifying criteria: English groups only (1967 - 1980)*

Nothing else constitutes Prog in the true sense of the word…

1. Soft Machine/Nucleus
2. King Crimson/UK/Bruford
3. Gentle Giant
4. Caravan/Egg/Hatfield and the North/Gilgamesh/National Health
5. Henry Cow/Slapp Happy/Art Bears
6. The Web/Samurai
7. Second Hand/Chillum


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mike Keneally deserves to be mentioned in this discussion. I've been following him since his debut album Hat in 1992 and he's been nothing but brilliant ever since.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

My first rule of thumb on what qualifies as prog rock would be: If they played on "Bitches Brew," they're not prog rock.  Mahavishnu, Weather Report, Herbie Hancock, Return to Forever, etc., are not prog rock. They're jazz one and all with whatever qualifiers one wants. Ludwig Schon, I think, is on the right track and in tune with the academic critical literature* except for being too restrictive. Can't exclude much of Yes, Genesis, Tull, ELP and the time frame is too narrow. Zappa is literally progressive music but it feels wrong to try to stuff him into the category.
 
*Covach & Boone: _Understanding Rock_; Macon: _Rocking the Classics_; Holm-Hudson: _Progressive Rock Reconsidered_


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Mike Keneally deserves to be mentioned in this discussion. I've been following him since his debut album Hat in 1992 and he's been nothing but brilliant ever since.


He's also highly competent as a musician. He toured and held his own with both Steve Vai and Joe Satriani.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

progmatist said:


> He's also highly competent as a musician. He toured and held his own with both Steve Vai and Joe Satriani.


Well, yeah. He plays phenomenal guitar and keyboards on all his own albums and his music is more challenging than Satriani's stuff.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> the academic critical literature


Speaking of which, Allan Moore's piece on Gentle Giant renders this entire thread moot in so far as he argues against "Prog-as-genre" altogether; I don't necessarily agree.



> Zappa is literally progressive music but it feels wrong to try to stuff him into the category


Yeah, progressive but not Prog. It's like calling Ellington "swing." Both are sui generis, though I tend to locate Zappa closer to the jazz-rock end of the spectrum.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Jay said:


> Speaking of which, Allan Moore's piece on Gentle Giant renders this entire thread moot in so far as he argues against "Prog-as-genre" altogether; I don't necessarily agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, progressive but not Prog. It's like calling Ellington "swing." Both are sui generis, though I tend to locate Zappa closer to the jazz-rock end of the spectrum.


Zappa also crosses into another subgenre: Novelty


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't consider any of Zappa's music as novelty with the exception of maybe, Cruisin With Reuben and the Jets. His one excursion into 50s nostalgia.

These days I'm pursuing new music. I've heard enough of the old 70s stuff.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

This is getting into the entire, "what is prog (Prog)" argument. 

An argument can be made, that upper case 'Prog' is a _style_ of music, maybe best defined by Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Hatfield and the North, etc from the 70's 

But, for me, small case 'prog' is much more a description of the structure of the music itself, and therefore, is almost style agnostic.

For me, bands that have a core of a somewhat standard rock band (drums, guitar, bass, and usually keys, but other instruments are welcome) and have the following attributes, are small case prog: very high level of musicianship, complexity (time signatures, chord progressions, etc) non-standard arrangements, tend to avoid verse>chorus>bridge>repeat song format, deep and broad range of emotional and/or intellectual content, creative improvisations. 

For me, it doesn't matter which country they came from, the year they existed and recorded, or the surface 'style' they play in, if it has all or most of the above attributes, they are a prog band. And as far as I'm concerned, they more of those attributes they have, and the better they are at them, the more prog they are. 

For example, Italian bands from the 70's: PFM, Banco, Area, Arti e Mestieri, Museo Rosenbach, and others, are no less (lower case) prog, than Yes or King Crimson, due to the attributes I mentioned above. Nor are more recent prog bands: Anglagard, Deus Ex Machina, NeBeLNeST, Setna, Thinking Plague, ZOPP, Ghost Rhythms, Forgas Band Phenomena, and many more, just because they originated in the last few decades. Nor, for that matter, are prog-metal bands.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> This is getting into the entire, "what is prog (Prog)" argument.
> 
> An argument can be made, that upper case 'Prog' is a _style_ of music, maybe best defined by Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Hatfield and the North, etc from the 70's
> 
> ...


Well, _now_ you've done it.

"Prog" vs. "prog" vs. "progressive rock" vs. "Prog Rock" vs. "progressive".

I've seen this before debate before, and on this site it makes me chuckle, as the term "Classical" has its own vagaries. 

Funny though, when one attempts to make distinctions between these different labels, one is still faced with the same problems of defining the terms.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

In the late 60s the term "progressive" rock was an adjective used to describe a host of stylistically-differentiated bands that had in common a desire to move beyond the constraints of Top-40 song stylings. The music press linked the term to the progressive politics of the counterculture; CBS records used it as a marketing term in their famous "The 'Man' Can't Steal Our Music" ad campaign. The music known today as "Prog" was called "Art rock," just one of multiple "progressive" approaches. 

By the mid-70s the term "Art rock" had been replaced by "Progressive" rock, now a noun naming a genre centered around bands such as King Crimson, Yes, ELP, and Genesis, which themselves would come to be sub-categorized as "symphonic" rock or "symph" for short; other sub-categories are now commonly recognized and collected under the diminutive "Prog," which emerged, to my knowledge, in the 90s as the over-arching categorical genre term.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Jay said:


> In the late 60s the term "progressive" rock was an adjective used to describe a host of stylistically-differentiated bands that had in common a desire to move beyond the constraints of Top-40 song stylings. The music press linked the term to the progressive politics of the counterculture; CBS records used it as a marketing term in their famous "The 'Man' Can't Steal Our Music" ad campaign. The music known today as "Prog" was called "Art rock," just one of multiple "progressive" approaches.
> 
> By the mid-70s the term "Art rock" had been replaced by "Progressive" rock, now a noun naming a genre centered around bands such as King Crimson, Yes, ELP, and Genesis, which themselves would come to be sub-categorized as "symphonic" rock or "symph" for short; other sub-categories are now commonly recognized and collected under the diminutive "Prog," which emerged, to my knowledge, in the 90s as the over-arching categorical genre term.


I am not quite sure about your political association with the term progressive rock. I have been a fan of the various subgenres now associated with the type of music now known as progressive rock, years before the term had been codified as it is used now. But I never remember this political association being mentioned. 

I distinctly remember reading, quite a few years ago, that the first print use of the term 'progressive rock' to describe a band, was in the late 60's English music press, and it was used to describe Cream, John Mayall and some others. I can't remember the exact source for this, but it seemed pretty legit.

I actually kind of like the term Steve Hackett came up with in an early 2000's interview; 'permissive rock', since it 'permitted' the use of disparate types of music (folk, classical, jazz, etc) to be used in a rock band context.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> I am not quite sure about your political association with the term progressive rock. I have been a fan of the various subgenres now associated with the type of music now known as progressive rock, years before the term had been codified as it is used now. But I never remember this political association being mentioned.


It was mainly an industry initiative, for whom the label "progressive rock" resonated nicely with the radical rhetoric of the era. CBS promoted some of its rock acts as "The Revolutionaries," and there was their famous "The Man Can't Bust Our Music" ad campaign. Warner released a compilation LP called "The People's Album," its cover art and lettering leaving little doubt as to its political intent:










Critics in the rock press were increasingly linking the music to the countercultural politics of the moment.



> I distinctly remember reading, quite a few years ago, that the first print use of the term 'progressive rock' to describe a band, was in the late 60's English music press, and it was used to describe Cream, John Mayall and some others. I can't remember the exact source for this, but it seemed pretty legit.


Yes, I recall the same, and increasingly commonly beginning in roughly late '66 [e.g., Cream]. The first Caravan LP [late '68] is often cited as the first use of the term specifically in relation to the music that would ultimately assume the label "Progressive rock," what we now call "Prog."


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

Prog as with many leading lights in popular music over the last 60 years burst out of Sarf Landin & the Garden of England… some with a penchant for the mythology surrounding the Great Leap Forward…


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Eh, I really don't see what the point of tracks like this are. It's basically a cover of a classical work in a proggy style. I hear this no different than I do metal/shred covers of classical. I think far more interesting are the prog bands/albums/songs, like a lot of King Crimson or Zappa, that took influence from classical but never sought to just cover classical or sound like classical, especially older classical Even Gentle Giant, with their postmodern juxtapositions of Renaissance polyphony and hard rock/blues, are more interesting and what I'd call "proper prog," because that's finding ways to genuinely blend classical and rock.


I agree with you on this.

I was never a fan, with a few exceptions, of prog bands doing classical pieces. Here's a couple:

ELP - Barbarian (Bartok)
King Crimson - The Devil's Triangle (Holst)

There are more, but give me originals, with tightly integrated classical influences, the vast majority of the time. 

I always thought, the subgenre of prog that does this the best, is the avant-prog (also known as RIO) subgenre. The classical music that this subgenre is most influenced by, is music from post 1950.

Something that becomes noticeable with these bands, is that a very high percentage of them have members that are grads from classical music conservatories, so they are coming from a classical world. 

Just as one example, the Belgian band, Aranis, is lead by a grad from Royal Flemish Conservatoire. Violinist, Liesbeth Lambrecht studied at the Conservatory in Antwerp, pianist Ward De Vleeschhouwer studied at the Royal Conservatoire of Ghent, flautist Ana Arns also studied at the Royal Conservatoire of Ghent.

But they are not unusual in this subgenre.

Prog Archives describes this subgenre like this:

Avant-prog is generally considered to be more extreme and 'difficult' than other forms of progressive rock, though these terms are naturally subjective and open to interpretation. Common elements that may or may not be displayed by specific avant-prog artists include:


Regular use of dissonance and atonality.
Extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements.
Free or experimental improvisation.
Fusion of disparate musical genres.
Polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Most avant-prog artists are highly unique and eclectic in sound and consequently tend to resist easy comparisons. However, Frank Zappa is often cited as a major influence on many avant-prog artists due to his early adoption of avant-garde and experimental attitudes within a predominantly rock/jazz context.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> Lil Ludi’s Top 7 Prog bands & offshoots
> 
> *N.B. the qualifying criteria: English groups only (1967 - 1980)*
> 
> ...


Does Centipede count?


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> Does Centipede count?


Tippett’s side-project would count, falling under both KC and the Softs/Nucleus. There one album is really little more than an extended noodle jam, rather than complex prog-jazz improv…


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> There one album is really little more than an extended noodle jam, rather than complex prog-jazz improv…


harsh


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> harsh


The AMM, MEV or Takehisa Kosugi’s Taj Mahal Travellers, they are not…


----------



## CatchARisingStar (7 mo ago)

I guess you can tell how much you like a band by the number of albums you have by them. In my case, that would be 106 Yes albums. BTW, shouldn't Rush have been included in the poll? I have 70 albums of theirs.


----------



## Andante Largo (Apr 23, 2020)

My favorites are:
Øresund Space Collective
Ozric Tentacles


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

CatchARisingStar said:


> I guess you can tell how much you like a band by the number of albums you have by them. In my case, that would be 106 Yes albums. BTW, shouldn't Rush have been included in the poll? I have 70 albums of theirs.


Gawd. 106?

I've only got 43 Yes albums.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Andante Largo said:


> My favorites are:
> Øresund Space Collective
> *Ozric Tentacles*


I loved the Ozrics. Great live band (especially if under the influence).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> I was never a fan, with a few exceptions, of prog bands doing classical pieces. ...


To an extent this is always my problem with "classical" (ProgArchives calls it "Symphonic") prog - my favorite stuff was always the stuff grounded in a rock context, particularly the mid-70s Crimson albums. 

That, and most anything German. Philosophically prog, I think, was at its best when it was using a rock idiom to push music forward, rather than what I sometimes saw as attempting to fit rock into classical trappings because that was the "serious art music".


----------



## ericshreiber1005 (7 mo ago)

Yes, ELP, early Genesis, Tull and King Crimson come quickly to mind. Camel, Gentle Giant, PFM are close behind. No love for Greenslade?


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

ericshreiber1005 said:


> No love for Greenslade?


Hit & miss for me; I like the first two LPs well enough. Worth it for McCulloch's drumming alone!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Moody Blues, Camel, Genesis, Marillion, Pink Floyd, and IQ. So many great Prog bands!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)




----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

It's either Mahavishnu or the Mothers. Accept no substitutes.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

[video]


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Very late to the party, but I've been a prog-head since I got my first Yes album (The Yes Album) in 1976 at the age of ten.
Yes will always be my very favorite prog band, but Genesis and King Crimson are very close contenders.

Of course, I love MANY other prog bands, but those 3 are my triumvirate.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Ludwig Schon said:


> 6th is garbage.


One man's trash is another man's treasure. I quite like 6.


----------

