The one that first came to my mind was the first Echolyn album(self titled)from 1991. 

^ I'd second Echolyn

Great minds think alike. 

I need some more from them, only own Suffocating the Bloom

Well, I don't want to get too off topic here but I will just say that the first album is very good(although maybe a bit rough production wise). However, typically aside from suffocating the one you need to get next is as the world. A lot of people like mei  also but I think maybe they bit off a bit more than they could chew on that one(one 45 minute track or however long it is). It makes for good listening for long car rides though. It's still worth checking out regardless though. Also, I never even thought of using italics for titles before so thanks for the idea. 

^ Standard practice for titles of albums, films, books, but not of individual tracks, episodes or chapters: those are in quotes.

I would also like to mention seasons end  by Marillion which was their first album with H(Steve Hogarth) in 1989. The Fish stuff was probably too retro sounding to be truly modern(although I suppose an argument could be made for CAS) but I think seasons end  qualifies. 

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Djam Karet are a better pick in 82. How about Ozric Tentacles in 85?

 

'84 for Djam Karet (first album, No Commercial Potential, in '85). 

Ozric Tentacles formed in '83. 

But whereas the Ozrics were surfing the waves of the Hillage-Gong mothership, Djam Karet was forging a unique sound.

Both are two of my favorite bands, but I've always ranked DK above OT.

I agree. Djam Karet or the Ozric Tentacles are a better pick than Echolyn.

Drama by Yes might also be a contender also and so might PG 3(melt). 

Well, like I said in my original post neo prog tends to be too retro sounding. However, that didn't really apply to Twelfth Night so much so they might certainly qualify imo. 

^ I was gonna say Saga too but they didn't seem to fit the OP's criteria.

I think in different ways albums such as Talk Talk - The Color of Spring and Metallica - Master of Puppets has had a huge impact on modern sounding progressive rock.

If it wasn't for the formed post 1980's rule here I'd say the approach heard on those early RIO-albums by Univers Zero has had much bigger impact on the flood of avant-bands than the modest popularity of the ensemble suggests.

Following the rules, to me it seems Ozric has their toe firmly in the Tangerine Dream/JM Jarre camp.

How about Drastic Plastic or Red Noise?

I haven't really thought this through much.  I just like seeing all the uniqueness and evolvement in music in the late 70s/early 80s.

I'll continue to think about it and follow this thread to see what we all come up with.  

What I now see the question as:  What happened after the prog boom waned in modern music that made me sit up and say "I have never heard something like this before."  But still holds true to basic progressive rock principals.  Whatever that is.

If you're going to get that picky, almost all prog is retro sounding in some way. I would pick Cardiacs if you want OMG originality. Nobody sounded like them and nobody has since.

But if you wanna stretch the definition of prog.......maybe Queensryche Operation Mindcrime

Good pick

You know what? Despite my no 70's rule I think this might be a good candidate. I'm open to suggestions and I try not to be narrow minded about it. Typically I just think most late seventies prog was still part of the first wave but if there was something new and fresh happening then it should be taken under consideration. 

As for my opinion about neo prog well most of it just sounds like it's retro and not totally new or different. Not being picky I just think it borrowed too much from the earlier stuff. Not all of it but it seems most did and made it rather obvious. I like how they weren't trying to hide their influences but at the same time it didn't seem like a new chapter for prog just a continuation with some mild new wave and punk influences thrown in from time to time. I'm actually by no means a neo prog hater either but for the purposes of this topic I don't feel the neo prog from the eighties qualifies for the most part.

No, no. You can't change your answer. Give someone else a chance. ;) Besides UK is very old prog sounding isn't it? With a touch of fusion? 

UK's first album was 78. 

1313 was 77. UK was 78 but still both are 70s!

The TRUE answer is the album that was released TODAY and yet haven't heard 

Sadly, this is an album that is under represented and not heard, and I think that a lot of folks do not like some of the acting in it by Daevid Allen to help create the story for the album, which is incredible, and a very "feminist" concern, for women ... something that a lot of men are threatened with a lot more than they might care to admit!

Gilli's albums, in general, are quite with it ... and many times her words are just so strong and with it, as to make one cry ... hearing her welcome the magick brothers and mystic sisters (more than once, but never better than in one album!), and then in so many other albums, adds something to the GONG trilogy and in general to the whole commune at the time, when it seems that the women were submissive, and when they wanted their freedom, they became witches ... in the end, nothing was farther from the truth, and Gilli, bless her heart, was one at its forefront!

NP: Mother Gong -- WILD CHILD

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: I never really thought of Bjork as prog. Kate Bush is prog related maybe imo but that's about it. I think she's crossover prog on here but I'm not sure. I suppose that fits her too.

This is the difficulty with a discussion like this. Either something resembles the early 70s music we know as prog, and we write it off as sounding too retro, or it sounds nothing like it and we write off as not being prog.

Bjork not being retro has pretty much nothing to do with it. Does her music have qualities that fit the traditional definition of prog? That is to say long instrumental passages, a focus on the music(ie composition) and not just songs in general, tight musicianship, odd time signtatures etc? It doesn't have to sound like old prog much(if at all)it just has to fit the general description and be considered prog according to the template that made it different which is what set prog apart from other music in the first place. I don't just mean sound but also construction of the music. Based on what I've heard Bjork's music does not fall within the general prog guidelines. Is her music quirky and different from most other "mainstream music?" Sure, but so was XTC, The Tubes and a lot of other bands. It doesn't make them prog. Art rock sure but not true prog imo. Something can be progressive(which I'm sure Bjork is)without being prog rock. Yes, I know Bjork is on this site but so is Tori Amos. 

I guess it's all irrelevant to this topic anyway since the first Bjork album came out around 1993 or so which makes her a little late to the party regardless of we want to define her music.  

Do you recall where you read that article where Maiden in the 80's...said they were prog more than metal..?

Just curious.

I can barely recall yesterday but this sticks in my mind because it was surprising to me at the time. Probably read it in Kerrang which I was occasionally reading at the time.

Thanks......I just thought that was a bit strange since everyone I know offline that like Maiden think they are a 'metal band'....with a few prog hints.

But I am aware that Harris is a huge fan of prog.