The Usual Suspects

What I find is funny is I'm just almost 18 by now, and most of my mates don't even know what elp or rush are. They may occasionally know Yes and quite often do know Genesis, but not for their prog era's, but just what they made afterwards. So there are no prog stereotypes for me - people around just don't know what prog is. And some of those, whom I showed prog just find it pointless, but I can't possibly guess which band affects it the most. I think it's for sure not rush - the're not typicall (defined by the "stereotypes") prog, so let's leave them. Each of the other bands put their bit to what I wrote.

Edited by adamw

ELP are probably the most responsible for all the comments about prog's excesses in the mainstream media, with Yes a close second. Not entirely without justification either, although it would be nice to see some acknowledgment of their positive qualities as well.

I don't mean stereotyped as in all their albums
sound the same but have recurring themes and
styles that outside listeners expect as part of their
stereotype of prog, which these bands serve to
confirm i.e. pretentious lyrics, pointless or
meaningless conceptual storylines, singing each
word in an epic manner, excessive use of keyboards
and synthesisers et cetera. This isn't an inditement
of a band's musical quality but their wider style and
life ethos eg Yes asking Patrick Moraz to become a
vegetarian in order to join them.

I do not think this question is put correctly, as it contains contradiction in itself. IMO the word "to create" something new, which is later becoming stereotype - is directly related to Prog, whilst to be adherent to stereotypes or cliche - is rather regressive in its sense.

which stereotypes?