A Brief Time line in prog 1966-2007

Are you, like, saying that Pink Floyd inspired Focus and Tull? I'm confused. But intrigued.

I say you listen to every opinion here. Then when your head stops spinning, put on a CD or record & let that spin for a while. Then go back to your original idea, which seemed interesting & best of all, it looked like you had put more thought into it than most , if not all of the resulting posts.
Kansas is the # 1 US prog band. Popular, yes; but check Echolyn, is there a certain mid-west influence ? The neo phase was made up in good part by the groups you mention, so again it fits well with your original idea.
I pray for your first intention, I hope for your perseverance, & I await the results with impatience. Go get 'em !

I'll add to what the others have said.

Kansas, Dixie Dregs, Happy the Man, Saga,  Pallas, Pendragon (and John Wetton, Bill Bruford solo) are all far to irrelevant to get included in this small time line.  Some of the germans started their own scene ca. 69. As early as the brits, and earlier than Genesis and Yes released any prog. And Van der Graaf were just as early as both of them.

Really, apart from Zappa (maybe Beefheart, Mahavishnu & The Residents, not many US bands are that important.

And what's this line from Pink Floyd through/kraut/space/electronic to Kansas about!!??

Your 1990 to today choices of bands is the strangest I've ever seen.

If you want to make it more complete, you also have to include more genres.

1800iareyay wrote: i just spotted Amon Dull. It's Amon Düül

Ha ha ha!

Most ironic misspelling ever.

Dare we infer anything?

Thanks everyone!

Edited by darksideof - June 05 2007 at 12:49

If this is a prog family tree (technically not a timeline), then it might be less condecending towards certain bands to have general styles producing other general styles (like symphonic prog morphing into neo-prog) and general eras of each genre (i.e. when symphonic prog began to become more pop oriented [Yes and Genesis], Crimson becoming more electronic/stripped down in the 80s).  A lot of bands have multiple influences--I remember reading that Genesis had the cover of ItCCK hanging on the wall as inspiration when they were recording one of their early albums (can't remember which one).

Also, you have Yes begetting Crimson, yet Crimson has its own boldface to the right. Plus, ELP shares far more with Yes and Genesis than they do to Crimso, though the VDGG parallel is correct. Also, the Italian scene only gets a little blurb, even though they created some of the most acclaimed prog, at least PFM and Banco.

 

Misspellings: Jimmy Henrix (Jimi), Vadergraaf (already discussed), Jeethro Tull (Jethro), Gentle Giants (Giant), Tangerine=Dreams (Tangerine Dream), Aeyron (Ayreon), Sposck's Beard (Spock's), The Tagent (Tangent), Flower King (Kings), Marillon (Marillion), Fate Warning (Fates), and Show Gallery (Shadow).

These are all the ones I could find. Also, capitalize band names and use the full names (you abbreviate the Italian bands) unless the band uses the abbreviation i.e. OSI.

This makes little sense. For the 90s, are you putting up the names of 70s bands that still play, cause that's kinda unnecessary, plus Pink Floyd stopped putting out new material, and Genesis and ELP had long before abandoned prog rock, so they don't really count. If you're going by band longevity, might i suggest more of a bar graph visual with more of a fixed timeline?

Some misspellings and generally hard to understand but a nice try.

Why are the 90s filled with 70s and 80s bands?


Edited by Frasse - June 05 2007 at 11:11

jikai55 wrote: Nice efforts, but lots of mistakes. Jimi Hendrix died in the 70's :p

Edited by darksideof - June 05 2007 at 09:47