It does on this site. I've seen people vote against an album or band because it was "Not Prog" or even because it was "Not Proggy Enough". There was no basis for judgment regarding the actual quality of the album or band.

That being said, I voted for Supertramp because they were more proggy. 

This. 

one band is good and has some fans that like them

one band is legendary and is pretty much universality respected by the trifecta of musicians, critics, and music lovers.

so should be an easy win.. but wait...

then there is PA's

one band is English prog and one is American and progressive  Guess which band wins haha

And that is where Supertramp lose out to SD for me.  I like Crime of the Century at least as much as Aja (my favourite Dan album and rated very highly by most fans), sometimes more because some of the tracks like Rudy are simply outstanding.  But Crisis is not nearly as good and Breakfast in America too drops off after a strong start (maybe right after the title track).  Dan on the other hand had a far more sumptuous discography.  From Countdown to Ecstasy all the way to Gaucho is just bucketloads of amazing jazz pop/rock.  Maybe not very 'prog' by the PA definition of the word but it's not like Supertramp is some reincarnation of Yes or ELP either.  Crossover prog at the most and frequently not prog at all.  Wonderful all the same but prog or not prog is hardly a point of contention here.

The Dan had chops, great songs, and witty lyrics...even if they were a bit too clever for their own good at times.

That is an interesting assertion because Dan is plenty piano based too.  Arguably their most beautiful song, Aja, has magical piano chords. And THEN, they had Larry Carlton on top of that.

Is that because I'm too new to the site, or is the poll closed?

In any case, I easily choose the Dan.  They are incredible, and tremendously unique.  On the other hand, Roger Hodgson's voice sends me running for my earplugs.  

No worries.  I'm sure it'll come around at some point.

Thanks.

And no worries on the Beatles dig. I pretty much knew my post there wouldn't go unscathed.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Ok, I'm going to let you guys decide who Steely Dan goes up against next. ;)

 

I think Steely Dan vs Radiohead on here would be interesting. 

 

No doubt that Steely Dan uses plenty of piano/keyboards in their music.  Notice I said this was a tough decision.  The difference is that Supertramp obviously concentrated on piano as being the lead instrument.  SD used keyboards, guitar, brass and so on for different lead instruments throughout their career.  I even place "Aja" and "Katy Lied" as top albums on my list, but I also place "Crime of the Century", "Crisis What Crisis?", "Even in the Quietest Moments" and "Brother Where You Bound" at the top of the list.  Obviously there are more albums by Supertramp at the top of my personal list. 

 

It's a good thing we all have our own opinions (which I always value everyone's opinions) otherwise all music, including Progressive Rock, would sound the same.  In fact, without opinions, Prog might not even exist.

Hear, Hear!

(although if we remove "jazz" from the fusion/crossover list there, then it's gotta' be Rush)

well here is the answer to that.. 

words of wisdom from a forum great as Rush were getting smoked by Le Orme in my battle of the bands some years ago...

HolyMoly wrote: I had no idea there were so many Le Orme fans here. (no Steve.. it was Rush they were against haha) C'MON GUYZ IT'S RUSH GEEZ Where was Le Orme when you were squeezing pimples in your teenage bathroom, looking for guidance to summon the courage to approach that pretty girl in your class?  Who but Neil Peart could give you the courage to say THE HELL WITH GIRLS I'M GONNA WITHDRAW INTO MY FANTASY WORLD ?

that is the extent of Rush's intelligence and Peart's laughable philosophy for high school losers...

God I love that man...  he nailed Rush to a T.

 

In terms of" progginess"

 

I'd rank them:

 

Debut and Brother

 

Crime and Moments  (if only for Overture, but not just that)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crisis & Breakfast  (if only for CoN)

 

 

 

 

Not prog at all: FLW and Stamped.

Wow, sycophant much? I've been a Rush fan since about 1980. They are my favorite band but I'm not sure I've ever found myself at this level of idolatry. 

Peart isn't any better or worse than any other rock lyricist. I'd certainly rather have his lyrics than the tired old typical rock lyrics about cars, getting drunk, and trashing hotel rooms, etc, etc. 

He's well read and he speaks intelligently. He also enjoys (well, enjoyed) writing lyrics. He does have a certain flair and can turn a phrase but I seriously can't put him on the pedestal that you're putting him on. 

It doesn't have to.  It's just one more capability a great lyricist can have in his quiver.  I mentioned this as one of Peart's many capabilities to point out that his writing is so much broader than the very narrow accusation levied against him.  

Well see there, you've just discredited yourself further. Verbose?  Peart is often one of the most succinct lyricists ever.  He is the master of the meaningful one-liner.   

And while I would add that intelligent people don't "fall for" Ayn Rand, but rather they understand the truth and wisdom she has to offer, even if what you say is true, it still only further confirms your unjustifiably narrow view of him.  He broadened his horizons beyond Rand and Objectivism very early in his career.  As early as A Farewell to Kings (1977), with the introduction of "Closer to the Heart," you could see he was moving beyond a much more holistic philosophical view. That evolution would continue throughout his career, and anybody who tracks his songs from album to album and actually pays attention, can see the growth of both the person and the artist.  

I dunno,' that sounds like pretty high praise.  

And nothing I said is false.  He was capable of, and did all those things.  If someone doesn't react positively, that's fine, and quite frankly, I don't expect anyone to react as positively as I do, but it doesn't take away from what he has accomplished with his pen, as well as his sticks (where he is undeniably at the top of the heap, even often grudgingly acknowledged by his haters).

And this is not blind idolatry.  Sycophant?  Please.  I did acknowledge that he's dropped some stinkers along the way.  But again, that's no worse than any other lyricist.  

Because I was praising the intelligence of the Dan's lyrics, and likened that to Rush.  Then all the haters crawled out of the woodwork. 

On one hand you say I put Peart on a pedestal and accuse me of blind idolatry, but in the same post you say you doubt I've actually followed his career.  

????   

This makes no sense.If I'm some kind of blind fanatic, how is it I wouldn't follow his career?  Isn't that what fanatics do?  

And where did you get the idea I don't know where that particular lyric comes from?  ftr, that line is rather pointless, but overall, that song is pretty damn good.  As is Freewill which, far from being verbose, covers religion, determinism, and wraps up with a resolution in a more rational explanation for the subject at hand.  All in three short four line verses with a chorus thrown in between.  It's absolutely classic.  

You're also confusing cause and effect.  You seem to think I praise his lyrics because I'm a fan when in reality I'm a fan because I like his lyrics (as well as every other aspect of the group).  I was originally drawn to Rush because of the music, and really didn't think of the lyrics much (just like most prog)  It wasn't until recently, after three plus decades of listening to Rush, that I started to see the greatness in the lyrics as well.  That's probably while I'm so passionate about it now; despite being a longtime fan, the greatness of the lyrics feels like a recent revelation to me.  

That is the very definition of liking and praising lyrics because you like the band.  If you did not find anything of note in the lyrics early on when you didn't know how much you were going to like Rush, then they cannot be everything that you claim to be. With repeated exposure, one can always find reasons to like something, if nothing else, to justify the habit. My case rests.

Naw, you're still not getting it.  When I first discovered prog, it was all about the music.  I never really cared about lyrics.  I just followed the virtuosity of the instrumentalists and the interplay of the parts into an intricate musical whole.  They could have been singing the owners manual to a '87 Ford Fiesta and it wouldn't have mattered.  I began to appreciate the lyrics as the result of expanding my musical horizons to include paying attention to the words as well as the sounds.

Your case is blown by the fact that there are many other groups I was a big fan of, and remain a big fan of, but didn't develop a similar impression for their lyrics.  Black Sabbath, for instance, especially the Dio era.  I love me some Heaven and Hell/Mob Rules.  Two of my all time favorite albums to listen to.  They were the day they came out and they remain so to this day.  But I don't find the same level of sophistication and intellectual appreciation for their lyrics as I do Rush's.  

So no, your conclusion that I only praise the lyrics because I like the group is flawed... and false.