Definitive prog band

I'd say King Crimson is the definitive prog band, even though they're not my favorite band.

except in the real world, few know Genesis' prog music, let alone Crimson's. And Tull are a distant memory.. more 'arena rock' than anything. Yes is still popular, but I think it's probably ELP. It wasn't their fault they were a 'supergroup', they were just three guys that had already been in successful bands. Zep was considered a supergroup, but only Page was well-known. It's an artificial term, I think.







Edited by Atavachron - May 23 2007 at 04:36

I'd go with Yes. When I hear prog in a non prog setting, there the first band I think of. Plus, they had it all, Skill, writing ability, a charismatic front man with a great voice! There a just a great major pioneer of Prog!

I don't think there is such a thing. Few bands have produced 100 percent progressive music their whole careers. (Anglagard is one of the few)
I would say ELP because to me they are what made prog beautiful to my ears...however, I know that they are not the "definitive" band. In truth...is there such a thing?

prog4evr wrote: micky wrote: Floyd King Crimson ELP Yes. What is it about PF that is prog?  I agree with the other three, but the fourth band to define prog for me would be Camel...

missed your post while I was on a vacation of sorts from the site....

Camel was a 2nd divsion prog band at best... by the time they hit their stride ...prog was heading down the toilet.  IF Camel had breathed fresh life into prog and IMPACTED prog like the groups ..well.. the groups I listed. I'd see Camel being worthy of being a 'definitive' prog group.  Sure the music is good... so are the scores of bands all of have in our collections,  that few to anyone here have  heard.  It's about impact... not as much quality. Though they do often go hand in hand....  having one.. doesn't automatically mean the other.

As far as Floyd...  directly creating one sub-genre of prog (SR) and being a large influence on another (KR)... and hell.. I'd toss electronic prog  in there as well.  They may not have been high on the complexity scale.. but that isn't all that prog was about. It was much more about the artistic aestetic than meer complexity. In that.. Floyd was prog in spades.  I don't see how anyone could seriously underestimate their impact and influence throughout prog.   But that is just the way I see it of course hahahah

 Hi,

For me it would be DT's Falling Into Infinity album. There's just so much variety and display of musicianship.

I agree with Yes as the definitive prog band.  They embody just about every prog cliche -- good and bad -- that there is.  1) They started off as a non-prog band and became prog over time; 2) They were from England; 3) Their best material was great and helped change popular music; 4) They had rotating personnel; 5) The album covers; 6) the mystical lyrics; 6) They got bloated and stale toward the end of the '70s and stopped recording regularly; 7) They went "pop" in the '80s and had a commercial resurgence while alienating most of their old fans; 8) They went back to being somewhat progressive in the second half of the '90s to the present, but it was just a pale imitation of how good they once were; 9) there are legions of people on the internet who have deluded themselves into thinking that #8 isn't true. 

"...or alternatively substitute the name of your own favorite band above in place of Yes..."

schizoid_man77 wrote: I dont consider Tull one of the three definative bands of prog, simply because... they lived on hits. I'm sorry, but it is true. How can you do two amazing albums like taab and a passion play, then come out with the very poppy and catchy three minuete long tunes of skating away and bungle in the jungle on the very non-prog warchild album?