How good is prog?

Dean wrote: Sturgeon's Law - "90% of everything is crud"  - an oft quoted phrase that makes people feel good about liking niche genres of anything - ergo 90% of Prog is crap is toted as a get out of jail free clause.

I'd say 80% is excellent. 10% is crap, and the other 10% is random noise that some artists put on their albums to take up space.

XunknownX wrote: Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: I'd say about 90  per cent (seriously too). It's like any genre, be it jazz, metal etc, most of the stuff is super run of the mill and boring and the other 10 per cent is gonna kick your ass. So...what are you doing here?

I imagine he's here for that ten percent, which, incidentally, is a helluva lot of ass kickin' music.

I voted over 60°, because in today's new wave of prog groups it's probably less than 10% of decent stuff, the rest being crap

Well if there's something classified as prog that I don't like, it obviously isn't prog so I guess that means none of prog is crap.

Since modern stuff keeps getting churned out, the proportion of crap will increase and the proportion of quality material from the olden days will become an ever-smaller part of the prog pie.

I weep because of this tragedy.

I voted 50%, but I think it's a little higher, how high I can't guess but I'm just working on the algorithm that any good band will be imitated. Usually the first round imitators are still good, but any round after that isn't worth listening to unless there's something else going on. At any rate, just judging the original prog (symphonic), I'd say it's a lot more than 50% that's crap, it just seems better than it is because the good bands are the ones that are constantly remembered.

well for me its 30%..