The Alan Parsons` Project

One could argue however that APP were placed into Prog-related before Crossover prog ever existed.  They might require further evaluation as they might fit better into Crossover prog then they would have fit into Art Rock.  Just a thought, not an opinion.

metalisnotprog wrote: Now i maybe dumb, but if the Alan Parson's Project is prog, why isn't ELO?

Good post, Jared! 

First off, a very belated welcome to Alan!  I love those artists myself, so you're in "bad" company. ;)

Just a  couple of notes on m.i.n.p. (I do prefer to call people by their real names in their profiles).  I agree that metal is not prog, and would say that rock is not prog either.  Progressive rock is Prog, and Progressive Metal is a kind of Prog, but rock and metal in and of themselves are not prog.  In fact, for me, one of the primary defining characteristics of Prog is its fusion of styles, so pure rock or metal is not Prog to my ears.  There are many great metal-fusion bands.  For a purist, Prog was a temporal movement in the late 60's-70's.  It brings me to a niggling question I've had, if Progressive Metal is not Prog Rock (and I've thought of metal as a rock subset) and this site was bulit to archive Progressive Rock albums/ bands, then how relevant is it to the site?  This question has been asked of various categories (I should raise this in the other thread, but since it's a related thought to what I was saying...).

As to Alan Parsons Project since you did ask, and never said anyone had to explain it to you: Jared's post is good, and it is important to recognise the differences (though not always clear-cut and people have differences of opinions) between bands in Related categories and Prog categories.  For me APP is a no-brainer, particularly based on the first two albums, but also later material.  Not only was it influenced  by progressive rock acts (of course Alan Parsons worked on Dark Side of the Moon, which admittedly, I don't think that Prog and Pink Floyd while part of the Prog canon is not as Prog to my ears as many other acts), and it has influenced many Prog artists (one of my favourites being Jozef Skrzek) nut it clearly blends Prog qualities with more mainstream rock.  It fits on every count as far as I'm concerned.  Growing up in the 70's, my circle considered APP Prog, and to me it is still proggy (I think there is a strong case for it in Crossover, in fact).  Early APP, at least, is quite widely considered Prog, I believe (at least I thought so).

It would be interesting to research how APP was generally classified in the 70s, because there has been much revisionism since then about what is Prog and what is not.

I have Type-O blood, so edited for typos.


Edited by Logan - September 17 2008 at 15:36

metalisnotprog wrote: Now i maybe dumb, but if the Alan Parson's Project is prog, why isn't ELO?   Don't go into the guff already on here. The APP is pop not prog, i've listened intently to all their albums, some good, some abysmal and some worse. My favourite is Ammoniun Avenue, and that's is as close to prog as Take That.   Can someone please explain why they are here.

I love the line in that song "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong" :)

Hmm, Alan Parson's Project. The first album is great, especially the side long classical piece on side 2. Eve and Pyramid are also great albums but they haven't made a decent album (imo) since Eye In The Sky.

Ooo! n Amiga user  - Hi Alan, welcome.

 next patient please...

 and a clappy for Dire Straits, not on the forum but certainly one of the more intelligent rock bands.

^ that is a group I have been listening to a LOT recently...  especially their first 4. 

you may certainly add ELO