you are right, but because Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull and Genesis continued after their peak period making LAME PROG they are OK. ELO(one of the true progressive rock pioneers) are considered POP in England therefore the world cant have them in the PROGARCHIVES.

Eldorado is one of the truly CLASSIC PROG albums of the 70's!

Well, if Styx and a lot of crap under the label prog metal have a place in this site, the only explanation is that the moderators spent their last seventies dancing Discovery and Xanadu and, regreting of this some years later, deleted ELO from their lives.

Seriously, from ELO I to Eldorado ELO was a prog group. Not the best, but a real prog group. On the third day Suite and Kuyama talk for themselves, and Eldorado is a really good pop-gressive rock album. 

moodyxadi wrote: Well, if Styx and a lot of crap under the label prog metal have a place in this site, the only explanation is that the moderators spent their last seventies dancing Discovery and Xanadu and, regreting of this some years later, deleted ELO from their lives. Seriously, from ELO I to Eldorado ELO was a prog group. Not the best, but a real prog group. On the third day Suite and Kuyama talk for themselves, and Eldorado is a really good pop-gressive rock album.

Don't assume things, ELO has been requested several times and  not been accepted for a simple reason, they never were a Progressive Rock band.

There have even included polls and ELO was rejected by the majority of the members, not the Adms, not the Collaborators, by most of  the members.

They had Orchestral arrangements, used symphony orchestra instruments, but behind all this they were rock (Great rock), all the structuire of their music was simple Rock and later as you well said they became a Disco band.

I love ELO, A New World Record has a place on my CD player always, but still I don't believe they were ever a Prog band.

Iván

Not one of their albums is "pure" prog - even though there were proggy moments, and even one or two proggy tracks in their first 3.

It's hard for me to consider ELO as even prog related, despite the orchestral arrangements (don't forget that many bands and even genres featured orchestration - inculding Tamla Mowtown, and much Disco).

As Ivan says, the general structures were simple rock song structures. To consider the other 4 elements of music, the melodies were accessible and largely rock and roll in flavour, the harmonies were straightforward - never experimental, and the rhythms were almost invariably 4/4 rock (later DiscoVERY ).

The "orchestral" textures were the most interesting aspect of their music, and maybe a bit progressive in themselves, but ELO used them to forge a single style rather than explore the timbral possibilities. The other thing I would expect from a prog rock band is a certain amount of pretension - more than ELO had. ELO gave nods and winks to the classics, but these tended to be in (respectful) fun - such as their cover of "Roll Over Beethoven" and "Rockaria" - both essentially rock and roll songs, of course.

I think ELO are/were great - there are very few of their albums missing from my collection,. They pushed the envelope of what they did, but I don't think they're prog.

Didn't anyone tell you?

The current Pope isn't a Catholic...

DallasBryan wrote: Eldorado is one of the truly CLASSIC PROG albums of the 70's!

Agreed.  I can't get it out of my head.

ELO are at least prog related.

hudibras wrote: micky wrote: couldn't agree more with this,  I think this is the 3rd thread I've seen in the last couple of months on the subject.  Guess even the powers that be are human and subject to their own bias's.  Enough so I was warned by another poster awhile back that ELO will NEVER be included.  Sounds like someone has an axe to grind,  yet Muse makes the list.  Go figure. I've sorried if topic is already said before. But I'd like to answer some questions here. If ELO is not prog, imho is due to their music is eclectic, unique, had a personal touch, like Beatles, for instance, is not neatly pop or rock'n'roll group. They created a style, and that's which ELO also did. So I'd put ELO as prog related o proto prog. Thanks a lot for all your answers. I love prog music!!!

Why not? ELO is Prog Related, IMO.

BiGi wrote: If Queen are prog-related (and I think so), then also ELO must be!

That doesn't necessarily follow - Queen and ELO are completely different.

ivan_2068 wrote: moodyxadi wrote: Well, if Styx and a lot of crap under the label prog metal have a place in this site, the only explanation is that the moderators spent their last seventies dancing Discovery and Xanadu and, regreting of this some years later, deleted ELO from their lives. Seriously, from ELO I to Eldorado ELO was a prog group. Not the best, but a real prog group. On the third day Suite and Kuyama talk for themselves, and Eldorado is a really good pop-gressive rock album.  Don't assume things, ELO has been requested several times and  not been accepted for a simple reason, they never were a Progressive Rock band. There have even included polls and ELO was rejected by the majority of the members, not the Adms, not the Collaborators, by most of  the members. They had Orchestral arrangements, used symphony orchestra instruments, but behind all this they were rock (Great rock), all the structuire of their music was simple Rock and later as you well said they became a Disco band. I love ELO, A New World Record has a place on my CD player always, but still I don't believe they were ever a Prog band. Iván

You write that "behind all this they were rock." Yes, you're right, and isn't that why prog is called prog rock? <---note use of word "rock." While the musical arrangements may not be as complex as Gentle Giant, there are other over-arching thematic structures and arrangements of the music that definitely qualify them as prog rock as this site defines it (not to mention "prog-related," which does a diservice to their work as a whole).

One can counter that "Tommy" is a concept album, but The Who shouldn't be considered prog, and I agree. But The Who began and continues to be a hard rocking band first and foremost. ELO never were considered a scrappy hard rocking band, but always a band that created thematically-centered, musically-complex and provocative, lyrically-compelling, rock from the beginning. That's the difference.

ELO prog. Yes. The time to remedy this misperception is now.

hudibras wrote: micky wrote: couldn't agree more with this,  I think this is the 3rd thread I've seen in the last couple of months on the subject.  Guess even the powers that be are human and subject to their own bias's.  Enough so I was warned by another poster awhile back that ELO will NEVER be included.  Sounds like someone has an axe to grind,  yet Muse makes the list.  Go figure. I've sorried if topic is already said before. But I'd like to answer some questions here. If ELO is not prog, imho is due to their music is eclectic, unique, had a personal touch, like Beatles, for instance, is not neatly pop or rock'n'roll group. They created a style, and that's which ELO also did. So I'd put ELO as prog related o proto prog. Thanks a lot for all your answers. I love prog music!!!

Michael Jackson created a unique style, and I believe nobody will consider him Prog', The Beatles changed musivc, but no Progtressive site considers them Prog'.

You are giving me arguments, their music is eclectic, Rock and Disco with some orchestral arrangements, but that isn't Prog'.

BTW: You can make things your own way, ELO can't be proto Prog because they are not predecessors of the genre, ELO started in the 70's, when Prog was already born.

Prog Related? That's another problem, anything can be considered Prog related, I believe this cathegory should dissappear, a band is Prog' maybe Art Rock or simply isn't Prog', there's not such thing as Prog related.

Iván

Some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop.

I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not).

salmacis wrote: I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop. I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not).

"Pompous pop" -- what does that mean? Sounds like many of the charges levelled against prog.

In terms of arrangement, ELO is progressive IMO, moreso than some bands already accepted as prog. And remember, ELO started out with a mission to push pop rock into more psychedelic and untried territory; they were not a blues-based rock band that decided to make a few concept lps (like Pretty Things or The Who). And they (and Lynne in particular) has achieved this.

I think a reassessment of ELO is in order. Too many old timers like Ivan have already made up minds about this and cannot seem to entertain a different perspective. We need another forum debate on this.

bluetailfly wrote: salmacis wrote: I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop. I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not). "Pompous pop" -- what does that mean? Sounds like many of the charges levelled against prog. In terms of arrangement, ELO is progressive IMO, moreso than some bands already accepted as prog. And remember, ELO started out with a mission to push pop rock into more psychedelic and untried territory; they were not a blues-based rock band that decided to make a few concept lps (like Pretty Things or The Who). And they (and Lynne in particular) has achieved this. I think a reassessment of ELO is in order. Too many old timers like Ivan have already made up minds about this and cannot seem to entertain a different perspective. We need another forum debate on this.

Yes, I made already my mnind, at least five times some people have asked for ELO and five times have been rejected, enough is enough, they haven't released moire material to at least have an excuse to try again.

And honestly I'm tired of intelligent arguments like well Radiohead is here, so ELO deserves to be, or Queen also, so why not ELO.

This is absurd, I don't believe Queen or Radiohead should be here (even when Queen are closer than ELO IMHO) and many metal bands have no relation with Prog', but one mistake doesn't allow us to make another one, two wrong choices don't make a good one.

If there are bands that don't deserve to be here, ok, it's a mistake, but don't use this as an excuse to make another even worst.

ELO was a ROCK band with orchestral (Not Progressive) arrangements (James Last and Ray Conniff had Orchestral arrangements also and nobody except some lunatic would say they are Prog), and to make more clear their mainstream orientation they abandoned Rock and embraced Disco, the structure of their songs is oriented towards Rock or Disco and not towards Prog.

A friend told me Rockaria was Prog'  Yes, they had a guy that could make the voice of an Opera Prima Donna and the song has lots of violin and cellos, but it's nothing except plain Rockabilly.

But they had their chance and the majority decided, so lets move on.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: bluetailfly wrote: salmacis wrote: I've never been a particular fan of theirs- some songs are decent, 'Mr Blue Sky', 'The Diary Of Horace Wimp' I like- but anyway, their music doesn't stand out as prog, rather more pompous pop. I'm glad to see that a few others have some problems with the 'prog related' idea; to me, this could open the spectrum a little TOO much- even artists like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, maybe even (gulp) Hall and Oates could be considered 'prog' related as they made concept albums, but I'm doubtful anybody here would call any of these acts 'prog rock' (at least I hope not). "Pompous pop" -- what does that mean? Sounds like many of the charges levelled against prog. In terms of arrangement, ELO is progressive IMO, moreso than some bands already accepted as prog. And remember, ELO started out with a mission to push pop rock into more psychedelic and untried territory; they were not a blues-based rock band that decided to make a few concept lps (like Pretty Things or The Who). And they (and Lynne in particular) has achieved this. I think a reassessment of ELO is in order. Too many old timers like Ivan have already made up minds about this and cannot seem to entertain a different perspective. We need another forum debate on this. Yes, I made already my mnind, at least five times some people have asked for ELO and five times have been rejected, enough is enough, they haven't released moire material to at least have an excuse to try again. And honestly I'm tired of intelligent arguments like well Radiohead is here, so ELO deserves to be, or Queen also, so why not ELO. This is absurd, I don't believe Queen or Radiohead should be here (even when Queen are closer than ELO IMHO) and many metal bands have no relation with Prog', but one mistake doesn't allow us to make another one, two wrong choices don't make a good one. If there are bands that don't deserve to be here, ok, it's a mistake, but don't use this as an excuse to make another even worst. ELO was a ROCK band with orchestral (Not Progressive) arrangements (James Last and Ray Conniff had Orchestral arrangements also and nobody except some lunatic would say they are Prog), and to make more clear their mainstream orientation they abandoned Rock and embraced Disco, the structure of their songs is oriented towards Rock or Disco and not towards Prog. A friend told me Rockaria was Prog'  Yes, they had a guy that could make the voice of an Opera Prima Donna and the song has lots of violin and cellos, but it's nothing except plain Rockabilly. But they had their chance and the majority decided, so lets move on. Iván

I appreciate the response, but I would disagree with the comment that "ELO was a ROCK band with orchestral (Not Progressive) arrangements." This is what I specifically disagree with, as I said in my earlier post. ELO was never a "rock band." From the start, they took rock structures and pushed into different directions -- that was what Lynne set out to do. In fact, I think he said something like, 'ELO has picked up where "I am the Walrus" left off." That sounds like a rather progressive vision, esp. for the early 70s.

As for Queen being more prog than ELO, I disagree with that because Queen is primarily a rock band. They started out as a rock band and they stayed true to it most of the time (which is great; I love Queen).

As for the ELO / disco connection, I don't believe ELO made disco music. I think the music got caught up in the disco craze, much as a lot of music today is remixed in techno format.

The bottom line is, I don't believe many members have really familiarized themselves with all of ELO's ouvre (especially the early lps) and so cannot meaningfully comment upon it. The forum needs a discussion with members who are familiar with all of ELOs output so that an informed debate can begin.

bluetailfly wrote: As for the ELO / disco connection, I don't believe ELO made disco music. I think the music got caught up in the disco craze, much as a lot of music today is remixed in techno format.

I disagree but respect all your points of view, but PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discovery (A play of words for VERY DISCO) and Xanadu were released by ELO, this are clear and evident DISCO albums, so ELO made Disco music.

They didn't remixed old songs in Disco beat, they created 100% Disco albums with 100% of new and original Disco songs and the last album was the soundtrack of a Disco Movie with the Disco star Olivia Newton John, that's a fact that nobody can deny.

Still I feel they were first a Rock band and then a Disco band.

Micky wrote:

Ivan-  the obvious difference in your example, with James Last and Ray Conniff,  is that  ELO were considered 'in the day' a prog group.

Considered Prog by whom? Even though I'm not an old timer as someone said (I'm only 41), I WAS THERE AT THE LATE 70's, nobody told me stories,. ELO was always a commercial band that was played all day long in commercial radios and no Proghead ever considered them Progressive, innovative maybe, but Prog, never.

Iván

BTW: I hacve each and every ELO album sinces their debut until Discovery, being the last one the only I regret about, I like their music but don't believe it's Prog.

micky wrote: Ivan, I know you have them all, I remember accusing you of having not heard them first time we talked about this ha hahah ha.   I do respect your opinion,  and also applaud you for being so....consistant in your standards You wanted to say stubborn, and I admit it.   I don't agree with many of the acts that are listed here either. In fact much of what you say may be true, but I believe you are overanalyzing it. Well, I always believed that Prog music needs to be analyzed, that's one of the main reasons why paople take so much time to fall in love with Progressive albums.  The progressive movement sprung out of the desire to move rock music out of the contraints of blues-based, guitar driven rock.  That is bit simplistic I know, but on the mark I think generally.  It was a movement, and ELO was without a doubt in that movement. Not IMO, I still believe they tried to make Rock & Roll with orchestral instruments, nothing more, sadly they fell in the cheepest genre possible back in the late 70's (Disco). BTW: I believe that Prog is much more than just moving from blues based Rock.  I'm the same age as you, was there in the late 70's as well,  my parents and my older brothers were really into prog back then and considered them prog. Just talked to Mom about that the other day (still loves ELO )  I still love ELO, but don't believe they are Prog Have friends who are a tad older and consider ELO prog, I know it's unscientific, but lends me to believe that amoung those who were active or interested in the scene at that time, that ELO was considered to be part of the English progressive movement. Honestly, nobody I know consider them Progressive, some say they had a couple Prog' moments, but I don't.

Iván

Nope, if you ask 10 people you'll get 100 different answers, because most of them will  change answers several times.

I could try a very elaborate answer, but I done it before in several threads, so I just try something as simple as your deduction. If you doubt, probably it isn't Prog', in this case most of the members here doubt.

Iván

I was there in the late 1970s... and the early 1970s too (although I didn't actually hear Genesis until 1976 )... and no-one I knew even dreamt of putting ELO in the Prog Rock pile - hardly surprising, really.

The term "Progressive Rock" wasn't even in common use until that time (1976-7 or so), and it was retrospective. The first occurrence I remember seeing of it was in an article about Punk Rock, and how it had kicked the Prog Rock dinosaurs like Yes back into the dark ages where it belonged.

By then, of course, ELO had lost any pretensions to prog that they might have otherwise had - agreed that "Out Of The Blue" is a double album, and has "suites" and stuff, and is fairly pretentious - but it's just great rock and roll written and performed exquisitely professionally.

OOB is on a par with Meat Loaf's "Bat Out Of Hell", in my opinion - another fantastic rock and roll album with brilliant and inspired extended and elaborate arrangements and full operatic pretensions - but no-one would ever mistake that for Prog Rock, would they?

I agree with Ivan and Cert on this point. As far as I know ELO were never considered Prog! Also I know of no one who considers them prog. I also agree with Cert that the term prog is retorospective, I certainly don't remember any "prog" fans at the time. Anyone who was into Yes etc, were usually into led zeppelin, sabbath etc. The distinction being that they were more into "albums" bands, rather than "singles" bands. 

So ELO....not prog. Prog related? Hell..who knows...who isn't?

Certif1ed wrote: I was there in the late 1970s... and the early 1970s too (although I didn't actually hear Genesis until 1976 )... and no-one I knew even dreamt of putting ELO in the Prog Rock pile - hardly surprising, really. The term "Progressive Rock" wasn't even in common use until that time (1976-7 or so), and it was retrospective. The first occurrence I remember seeing of it was in an article about Punk Rock, and how it had kicked the Prog Rock dinosaurs like Yes back into the dark ages where it belonged. By then, of course, ELO had lost any pretensions to prog that they might have otherwise had - agreed that "Out Of The Blue" is a double album, and has "suites" and stuff, and is fairly pretentious - but it's just great rock and roll written and performed exquisitely professionally. OOB is on a par with Meat Loaf's "Bat Out Of Hell", in my opinion - another fantastic rock and roll album with brilliant and inspired extended and elaborate arrangements and full operatic pretensions - but no-one would ever mistake that for Prog Rock, would they?

I too was there in the late 70's and among my group of prog aficianados, no one would have said, "Oh, ELO, they're just a rock band." And certainly none of them would have said that their work was on the level with Meatloaf! Indeed, if that would have been uttered, we would have seriously questioned the depth of that individual's critical insight into prog, and music in general (sorry Certified, but it's true ).

In the 70s, prog primarily referred to symphonic prog bands, and of course we did not classify ELO in that genre. But later, as prog began to include more sub-genres of rock under its umbrella, then ELO's inclusion began to make sense. Certainly if Roxy Music can be classified as prog under the "art rock" sub-genre, then so can ELO.

So I think the question is, why doesn't ELO qualify under the art rock sub-genre?

Aren't Styx the American ELO, but worse songs?

So..............................

dream_orchestra wrote: Aren't Styx the American ELO, but worse songs? So..............................

Not even close.  Styx was an arena band in the 70s, much closer to Cheap Trick, Thin Lizzy, Gary Wright, Heart, Peter Frampton, or even Foreigner, but a far cry from ELO, who was more likely back then to attract fans of Queen, Kansas, Moody Blues, 10CC, and Atlanta Rythmn Section.

I remember when Styx tried to do a couple of artsy concept albums (Paradise Theater, Mr. Roboto), they pretty quickly found themselves touring county fairs instead of arenas and their sales never really recovered.  That just wasn't what where their fan base was.  Some of their earlier stuff like The Grand Illusion, Crystal Ball, and Equinox was definitely not pop or hair band, but didn't rise to the level of being progressive either.

ELO, on the other hand, had several albums like On the Third Day, ELO II, Out of the Blue, and El Dorado were maybe not progressive, but certainly of much better musicianship and higher production quality than bands like Cheap Trick, Styx, and even Queen.  And Roy Wood did some very underpublicized but interesting work with Wizzard around that time as well.

Unfortunately, by the time ELO pushed out their Time LP, they were pretty much on the road to pop icon status (and shortly followed by albatross obscurity).

IMHO, the volume of eclectic and interesting work they did prior to 1977 should merit them at least consideration under the Prog Related banner, but probably not much more than that.

BTW, Styx probably doesn't belong here at all, but at least they do generate some interesting threads from time to time, so I guess it's not a total travesty.

I appreciate your point of view.

I am sorry, maybe I am not taking enough time to think but I gotta say something...

I find all of this really ridiculous, the fact that we add Muse, Radiohead, and all of those contemporary POP-ROCK bands in here... (And you guys say they're prog related, because of their music, but if theyre prog RELATED, then all their other compatriots of the POP ROCK scene are somwhere RELATED... so why not add System Of A down, and Coldplay while at it, man, lets just add everything that's related, EVERYTHING IS RELATED... I mean at the end of the day, music is just an endless puzzle where everything meets. PROG RELATED section was a MISTAKE!!!)

And when it's time to add things like ELO, or other bands that cleary had a PROGRESSIVE SOUND!!!... we have a sh*t load of difficulty doing so... while groups like Radiohead slip by as if someone gave a 20$ to the website owner. 

ELO are not prog, Styx are not prog......but no one llistens.

NecroManiac wrote: www.allmusic.com have them listed under prog-rock/art-rock.....

Allmusic is one of the most unreliable places for Progressive Rock.

They are a commercial site that mentiopns Prog bands, use Prog sites as reference better.

Iván

ClemofNazareth wrote: ELO, on the other hand, had several albums like On the Third Day, ELO II, Out of the Blue, and El Dorado were maybe not progressive, but certainly of much better musicianship and higher production quality than bands like Cheap Trick, Styx, and even Queen.

That's unsupportable, not to say not true.

Cheap Trick were completely different - but they were very skilled songwriters and good musicians at what they played - the music is hardly comparable,

I'm not so sure about Styx, as I'm not familiar with all their back catalogue, but to say that ELO had better musicianship than Queen is obviously not true!

stebo wrote: I find all of this really ridiculous, the fact that we add Muse, Radiohead, and all of those contemporary POP-ROCK bands in here... (And you guys say they're prog related, because of their music, but if theyre prog RELATED, then all their other compatriots of the POP ROCK scene are somwhere RELATED... so why not add System Of A down, and Coldplay while at it, man, lets just add everything that's related, EVERYTHING IS RELATED... I mean at the end of the day, music is just an endless puzzle where everything meets. PROG RELATED section was a MISTAKE!!!) And when it's time to add things like ELO, or other bands that cleary had a PROGRESSIVE SOUND!!!... we have a sh*t load of difficulty doing so... while groups like Radiohead slip by as if someone gave a 20$ to the website owner.

You find it ridiculous because you don't understand what makes Prog Rock - or you wouldn't be suggesting System of a Down and Coldplay as additions, or questioning bands like Radiohead (obviously Prog Rock) or Muse (obviously Prog Related).

Everything is not necessarily Prog Related - there are just some bands who cross the border from mainstream into prog but don't necessarily stay in the prog camp full time. I don't mean bands who insert the odd polka and have politically oriented lyrics or just have a spacey sound that's a bit similar to Radiohead, (like about 50% of bands since Radiohead released "OK Computer"), I mean bands that have the Prog attitude and take a really diverse approach to their music.

To the best of my knowledge, Jeff Lynne, despite his obvious talents and great songwriting skills, had his eyes mostly on making money from hit singles from the word go - "Eldorado" is kind of borderline, but practically everything else they/he wrote is very accessible and decidedly not prog.

It's not enough to have a progressive sound - the music needs to be progressive too. The Sex Pistols had a progressive sound, if you want to look at it that way...

Certif1ed wrote: ClemofNazareth wrote: ELO, on the other hand, had several albums like On the Third Day, ELO II, Out of the Blue, and El Dorado were maybe not progressive, but certainly of much better musicianship and higher production quality than bands like Cheap Trick, Styx, and even Queen.  That's unsupportable, not to say not true. Cheap Trick were completely different - but they were very skilled songwriters and good musicians at what they played - the music is hardly comparable, I'm not so sure about Styx, as I'm not familiar with all their back catalogue, but to say that ELO had better musicianship than Queen is obviously not true!   stebo wrote: I find all of this really ridiculous, the fact that we add Muse, Radiohead, and all of those contemporary POP-ROCK bands in here... (And you guys say they're prog related, because of their music, but if theyre prog RELATED, then all their other compatriots of the POP ROCK scene are somwhere RELATED... so why not add System Of A down, and Coldplay while at it, man, lets just add everything that's related, EVERYTHING IS RELATED... I mean at the end of the day, music is just an endless puzzle where everything meets. PROG RELATED section was a MISTAKE!!!) And when it's time to add things like ELO, or other bands that cleary had a PROGRESSIVE SOUND!!!... we have a sh*t load of difficulty doing so... while groups like Radiohead slip by as if someone gave a 20$ to the website owner.  You find it ridiculous because you don't understand what makes Prog Rock - or you wouldn't be suggesting System of a Down and Coldplay as additions, or questioning bands like Radiohead (obviously Prog Rock) or Muse (obviously Prog Related). Everything is not necessarily Prog Related - there are just some bands who cross the border from mainstream into prog but don't necessarily stay in the prog camp full time. I don't mean bands who insert the odd polka and have politically oriented lyrics or just have a spacey sound that's a bit similar to Radiohead, (like about 50% of bands since Radiohead released "OK Computer"), I mean bands that have the Prog attitude and take a really diverse approach to their music. To the best of my knowledge, Jeff Lynne, despite his obvious talents and great songwriting skills, had his eyes mostly on making money from hit singles from the word go - "Eldorado" is kind of borderline, but practically everything else they/he wrote is very accessible and decidedly not prog. It's not enough to have a progressive sound - the music needs to be progressive too. The Sex Pistols had a progressive sound, if you want to look at it that way...

yea, well I really wasn't serious about adding coldplay and all... that was just to show how stupid it has become. What you say is true, it is smart and all, but I still think that we are making useless categories like "prog related", cause music is a whole lot of lines that meet together, and at the end of the day... making "related" genres is just gonna be chaos

and can you describe that "prog attitude" please. cause, I dont really agree with that part, bands like Pink Floyd (David Gilmour especially) really didn't like bands like ELP and prog. but yet, we put them as prog! I dont think there is such thing as "prog" attitude, we have all types of people that make prog music, hippies, nerds, metalhealds. etc. it is just a matter of music and sounds.

hehe, yea that is true then, I guess as long as radiohead, and such silly bands  stay in prog-related, its alright, i agree, they do sound better than the normal rock bands... but if i ever see system of a down or U2 in symphonic prog or canterubury, or psychedelic rock.. i will shoot myself and i will send a video of it to progarchives.

And again, what you say about prog lyrics. is true, it takes a certain "personnality" (couldnt find a better word) to write prog lyrics, but some people would still disagree about how prog the lyrics of some bands are (like me).. I read the lyrics of Radiohead OK COMPUTER, it IS better than greenday and such, but I still dont like it... theres something unique about 60s and 70s prog lyrics (but yea i guess they can be considered modern prog lyrics) guess if we want the classic prog bands lyrics again, we should get a new timothy leary and give out acid to every one

stebo32 wrote: hehe, yea that is true then, I guess as long as radiohead, and such silly bands  stay in prog-related, its alright, i agree, they do sound better than the normal rock bands... but if i ever see system of a down or U2 in symphonic prog or canterubury, or psychedelic rock.. i will shoot myself and i will send a video of it to progarchives. And again, what you say about prog lyrics. is true, it takes a certain "personnality" (couldnt find a better word) to write prog lyrics, but some people would still disagree about how prog the lyrics of some bands are (like me).. I read the lyrics of Radiohead OK COMPUTER, it IS better than greenday and such, but I still dont like it... theres something unique about 60s and 70s prog lyrics (but yea i guess they can be considered modern prog lyrics) guess if we want the classic prog bands lyrics again, we should get a new timothy leary and give out acid to every one

Well, back in 1997 I didn't think that Radiohead were Prog Rock either - when I bought my copy of "OK Computer" I thought I was buying an album by an Indie band that were just a bit better than the rest of them (and in 1997, there were a LOT of good guitar bands, IMO).

However, as I listened to that album more and more, it struck me, more or less against my will, that in fact, Prog Rock was exactly what it is.

And check out the lyrics - Thom must've been on something scary to write this mind-blowing piece;

I am the key to the lock in your house
That keeps your toys in the basement
And if you get too far inside
You'll only see my reflection

It's always best when the light is off
I am the pick in the ice
Do not cry out or hit the alarm
You know we're friends till we die

And either way you turn
I'll be there
Open up your skull
I'll be there
Climbing up the walls

It's always best when the light is off
It's always better on the outside
Fifteen blows to the back of your head
Fifteen blows to your mind

So lock the kids up safe tonight
Put the eyes in the cupboard
I've got the smell of a local man
Who's got the loneliest feeling

That either way he turns
I'll be there
Open up your skull
I'll be there

Climbing up the walls