| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Pafnutij 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
 Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:05 |
I had written a rather long post but my beloved computer swallowed it up so I'll be quick:
Point A: "Progressive" is just a word the journos and critics chose to label this direction of rock, simply for convenience and because the name sounded good. Had they called it Symphonic Rock, you'd be asking why there's usually no orchestra; if it was Cheese Rock , you'd debate whether it's mozarella or cheddar, etc. It's a simple name for a genre , it aint supernatural and there's no need to overcomplicate it all.
Er, forgot what point B was. *Hick" Goodnight!
|
 |
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:14 |
 Pafnutij wrote:
Had they called it Symphonic Rock, you'd be asking why there's usually no orchestra |
The music of Yes and Genesis was actually called "symfonische rock" in 1970s Holland. I guess albums like FOXTROT or RELAYER seemed symphonic enough, even without orchestra!
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:57 |
fuxi wrote:
^ I was once taught by a guy called Van Gorp but I guess HE had nothing to do with it?!  |
No, it's only the same old PROG, but reversed. Let's wait for Logan for the in-depth details, though...
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 15:09 |
darqdean wrote:
I will not get into a game of "did/did not" verbal ping-pong with you on this Iván because we evidently hold a different views of what the term Popular Music means, so If I say that Rock Music is also a subset of Popular Music it will achieve nothing. For me Popular Music is not just ABBA, Madonna and the Top 40 but encompasses all modern music. |
It's nothing to be afraid from about a debate, but you are changing the terms Darqdean, Rock is a subset of Popular Music, that can't be denied, but POPULAR is not equal to POP....everything except Classical Music is Popular but not everything different from Classical Music is POP.
You stated that Prog grew from POP, I don't believe so, POP is just a sub-set of Popular music as Jazz, Rock or Folk, all separete and independent.
POP has it own structure, sound, target public, etc, totally different to Rock, Jazz or Folk and of course from POP.
darqdean wrote:
From my perspective the Pop bands of the late 1960s lead directly to the development of Rock music, of which Progressive Rock was an integral part. |
Yes, but we are talking about PSYCHE, not POP, the main change that lead to Prog came from the explorative movement appeared in San Francisco and London around 1967 or 68.
This movement went far beyond POP, as a fact they were the opposite.
darqdean wrote:
When one of the leading Pop bands, The Yardbirds, can lead directly to the formation of Cream, Led Zeppelin (aka The New Yardbirds before Keith Moon's Lead Ballon quip), The Jeff Beck Group and Renaissance;
|
Well, neither the Yardbirds or Led Zeppelin were ever POP bands
The Yardbirds are a blend of Psychedelia, Blues-Rock, British Blues and British Psychedelia, I can't find the Pop connection, yes they were popular, but not POP.
darqdean wrote:
when both Deep Purple and Yes featured Beatles songs on their respective debut albums; |
That's called CROSSOVER, a band of a determined genre, plays songs originally from another genre but addingg their own touch.
darqdean wrote:
when Gentle Giant were known as Simon Dupree and the Big Sound; |
Simon Dupree and the Big Sound was one explorative band product of the 60's trying to make surreal music, but even if they had some POP leannings at the beginning, this doesn't mean this POP influenced Prog, they evolved, changed in something different, don't use the Elton John argument because Elton John wanted to make Prog, he audicioned with Gentle Giant and King Crimson without success.
darqdean wrote:
when Pink Floyd released See Emily Play as a single; |
Please Darqdean, if Pink Floyd was influencial to Prog was not for a soft Psyche Barrett song as See Emily Play, yes they played a couple of mainstream songs, but I wouldn't dare to call this track POP.
darqdean wrote:
when the pop/beat group The Wilde Flowers led directly to the creation of the Canterbury Scene; |
The Wilde Flowers is a Psychedelic/British Invasion group, they are not credited as POP anywhere, you seem to mix the meanings of Pop, Popularity and Mainstream, they are not synonumous at all.
darqdean wrote:
when the Moody Blues first used a Mellotron and when Genesis's released their first album all suggests to me a reasonable Pop connection to the beginnings of Prog Rock.[QUOTE]
The moody Blues were never Prog IMO until Long Distance Voyager and please, Genesis started as a POP band when they were at school, but the change on Trespass is radical, we're not talking about the same band, but a about a band that evolved into something different in one album.
[QUOTE=darqdean]I'll not deny that subsequent to that the development of Rock and Prog Rock (from 1971/2 onwards) made deliberate moves to expunge any Pop connection and the cry of "sell-out" became a warning shot to any band who attempted to make a commercial record. |
That's not accurate either, Pink Floyd wasn't afraid to be popular, DSOTM was several years as the N° 1 album, then The Wall also, but none of them is POP, popular yes but POP no.
There are some points when Pop and Prog cross roads, but is not accurate to say that Prog evolved from Prog.
Both Pop Rock and Progressive rock are duifferent branches of the tree called Rock & Roll
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 05 2007 at 15:18
|
|
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:07 |
|
I think the confusion with Pop vs Popular is because that what Billboard called its charts. In fact for many, many years rock was in the Pop list. It wasn't until I think the eighties that they created a separate list for rock. People can argue that this band or that band is or is not Pop but according the charts they were. BTW What other source of reference are we using if not this?
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:15 |
|
The confusion comes from mixing the different disciplines that each have it's own meaning to the same words. From the aesthetical point of view, pop is a musical style as defined by Ivan, but from the point of view of sociology and sociological studies, rock, pop, progressive etc. are all part of the "popular culture" which they also refer to as to "pop culture" (which also includes pop art, for example, but commercial cinematography and most of other entertainment forms too). These two perspectives (aesthetical and sociological) should not be put together to work in the same context, as they usually generate confusion.
|
|
Sckxyss
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:46 |
raindance2007 wrote:
Real proggressive rock is rock music played in a jazz format. It can have many other infuences including classical etc. But it is basically styled on jazz music. Listen to Bruford, Giles, Palmer, Bunker etc. Their drumming is definately jazz based. Then you add the wind instruments suh as flute, clarinet, soprano, sax etc. Jazz once again. Then you look at the way the guitar is played. The guitar isnt the main instrument, it is used as background rhythm or sounds etc. That's how jazz guitarists do it too. It's like a jazz band playing rock music and adding influences. Progressive rock is just a name but it mainly jazz rock with classical influences. Todays music is not the same. Tool, Opeth, Dream theatre etc are just guitar bands who only have about 10% of the similarities of the true progressive bands. Apart from the odd time signatures that's where it ends. It's not true progressive rock. It's just metal mainly and is no where near as good. None of those bands base their music on hammond organs or wind instruments. Their song writing telents are no where near as good.
yeah todays rock is based on the guitar. Music is about even contribution of instrument, but today it is guitar dominated. Well it has been like this for 25 years now. Mainly styled from American rock music. The guitar is too loud and there is way too much of it and it leaves less time for melody and other musicians to shine. Most rock music today involves really lazy bass lines and melodies, but alot of that is to do with the fact these people are amatuers at making melodies. i dont rate much rock music after 1983. I find Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth quite boring most of the time. They don't even have a hammond organ or a flute  |
First of all, stop stating your opinions as fact. Very few people see progressive music the way you do. If you enjoy the 70s more, that's fine, but that doesn't make it objectively better than new music. I personally think you just need to hear some more varied modern music, as the only thing you described (poorly) was progressive metal, and there's much more out there.
Second of all, Progressive rock does not necessarily have to do anything with jazz. It is common to find jazz style and influences, but not always. One thing that almost all artists on this site have in common, as opposed to just the jazz influenced 70s artists, is the sophisticated compositional style. This is often due to a classical influence, take Genesis as a prime example. With Jazz, composition structure isn't often taken into account (at least not the jazz I've heard), and it's more improvisational.
Of course, everything is subjective, so if you want to think Progressive = Rock+Jazz and all modern music = distorted guitar, that's fine with me, as long as you don't claim it as fact.
Edited by Sckxyss - October 05 2007 at 16:47
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:40 |
Sckxyss wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
Real proggressive rock is rock music played in a jazz format. It can have many other infuences including classical etc. But it is basically styled on jazz music. Listen to Bruford, Giles, Palmer, Bunker etc. Their drumming is definately jazz based. Then you add the wind instruments suh as flute, clarinet, soprano, sax etc. Jazz once again. Then you look at the way the guitar is played. The guitar isnt the main instrument, it is used as background rhythm or sounds etc. That's how jazz guitarists do it too. It's like a jazz band playing rock music and adding influences. Progressive rock is just a name but it mainly jazz rock with classical influences. Todays music is not the same. Tool, Opeth, Dream theatre etc are just guitar bands who only have about 10% of the similarities of the true progressive bands. Apart from the odd time signatures that's where it ends. It's not true progressive rock. It's just metal mainly and is no where near as good. None of those bands base their music on hammond organs or wind instruments. Their song writing telents are no where near as good.
yeah todays rock is based on the guitar. Music is about even contribution of instrument, but today it is guitar dominated. Well it has been like this for 25 years now. Mainly styled from American rock music. The guitar is too loud and there is way too much of it and it leaves less time for melody and other musicians to shine. Most rock music today involves really lazy bass lines and melodies, but alot of that is to do with the fact these people are amatuers at making melodies. i dont rate much rock music after 1983. I find Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth quite boring most of the time. They don't even have a hammond organ or a flute |
First of all, stop stating your opinions as fact. Very few people see progressive music the way you do. If you enjoy the 70s more, that's fine, but that doesn't make it objectively better than new music. I personally think you just need to hear some more varied modern music, as the only thing you described (poorly) was progressive metal, and there's much more out there.
Second of all, Progressive rock does not necessarily have to do anything with jazz. It is common to find jazz style and influences, but not always. One thing that almost all artists on this site have in common, as opposed to just the jazz influenced 70s artists, is the sophisticated compositional style. This is often due to a classical influence, take Genesis as a prime example. With Jazz, composition structure isn't often taken into account (at least not the jazz I've heard), and it's more improvisational.
Of course, everything is subjective, so if you want to think Progressive = Rock+Jazz and all modern music = distorted guitar, that's fine with me, as long as you don't claim it as fact. |
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average 
Edited by raindance2007 - October 05 2007 at 17:41
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:45 |
andu wrote:
No, it's only the same old PROG, but reversed. Let's wait for Logan for the in-depth details, though... |
Meanwhile I'll be listening to that well-known opera PROGGY AND SEBB ["Selling England by the Bond"] by a guy called SCHWINGER!
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:52 |
Have fun! 
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 01:13 |
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 01:26 |
raindance2007 wrote:
[
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average
. |
Have you ever listened:
- Anglagard
- Par Lindh Project
- Trespass (Israel)
- Glass Hammer
- Karda Estra
- After Crying
- Magenta
- Shadow Circus
- Magrathea
- Deluge Grander
Just to mention ten in the vein and the level of the pioneers of the 70's.
Neo Prog and Prog metal is not everything new in Prog, all this bands play Prog of first class, with lots of keyboards and actually none of them is guitar based..
Sorry man, listen first and then give opinions, not pseudo facts
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 06 2007 at 01:34
|
|
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 03:36 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
[
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average
. |
Have you ever listened:
- Anglagard
- Par Lindh Project
- Trespass (Israel)
- Glass Hammer
- Karda Estra
- After Crying
- Magenta
- Shadow Circus
- Magrathea
- Deluge Grander
Just to mention ten in the vein and the level of the pioneers of the 70's.
Neo Prog and Prog metal is not everything new in Prog, all this bands play Prog of first class, with lots of keyboards and actually none of them is guitar based..
Sorry man, listen first and then give opinions, not pseudo facts
Iván |
anglagard don't come close imo.
|
|
Sckxyss
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 15:20 |
raindance2007 wrote:
20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. |
What you're saying would be like me saying, "We shouldn't call today's heavy music "rock" because it's not as good as classic rock, and because the guitar is sometimes more distorted". Progressive rock is not defined by how prominent the guitar sound is, it is music that is composed to be beyond the level of common popular music, IMO. Also, I'm pretty sure contemporary rock would be something in the vein of Elton John  .
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 17:14 |
raindance2007 wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
[
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average
. |
Have you ever listened:
- Anglagard
- Par Lindh Project
- Trespass (Israel)
- Glass Hammer
- Karda Estra
- After Crying
- Magenta
- Shadow Circus
- Magrathea
- Deluge Grander
Just to mention ten in the vein and the level of the pioneers of the 70's.
Neo Prog and Prog metal is not everything new in Prog, all this bands play Prog of first class, with lots of keyboards and actually none of them is guitar based..
Sorry man, listen first and then give opinions, not pseudo facts
Iván |
anglagard don't come close imo. |
It's obvious you haven't heard the modern Prog you should according to your taste, because of ten bands you limit your reply to one. Are you some kind pf masochist that hates Metal and neo Prog, but you inisst lietning them to havve an excuse to rant.
And your argunmebnt about Anglagard is a bit weak "anglagard don't come close imo", hey, I don''t like king Crimson or VDGGb but I know whjen something has qualitty and those bands are extraordinaire, the fact i don't like them doesn't make them less good.
Anglagard is one of the most respected bands not only by fans (very few) but by experts and reviewrs that come here:
 Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (66%)
 Excellent addition to any prog music collection (18%)
 Good, but non-essential (5%)
 Collectors/fans only (6%)
 Poor. Only for completionists (4%)
You can say you don't like them, but saying THEY DON'T COME CLOSE without giving a single argument, and force us to accept it after we took the time to say they are good making careful reviews.
Why don't they come close?
Are there mediocre performers?
Is their music technically poor?
Ov simply because you want to believe Prog died in 1981 (according to yopu, because the golden era of Symphonic ended in 1977 more or less?
Listen the other nine bands and then give me your opinion again.
To affiirm that all modern Prog bands are bad, you must have listened hours and hours of new bands, but seems you refuse to try anything new and just criticize modern Prog without a single valid argument.
Iván
|
|
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 17:34 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
[
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average
. |
Have you ever listened:
- Anglagard
- Par Lindh Project
- Trespass (Israel)
- Glass Hammer
- Karda Estra
- After Crying
- Magenta
- Shadow Circus
- Magrathea
- Deluge Grander
Just to mention ten in the vein and the level of the pioneers of the 70's.
Neo Prog and Prog metal is not everything new in Prog, all this bands play Prog of first class, with lots of keyboards and actually none of them is guitar based..
Sorry man, listen first and then give opinions, not pseudo facts
Iván |
anglagard don't come close imo. |
It's obvious you haven't heard the modern Prog you should according to your taste, because of ten bands you limit your reply to one. Are you some kind pf masochist that hates Metal and neo Prog, but you inisst lietning them to havve an excuse to rant.
And your argunmebnt about Anglagard is a bit weak "anglagard don't come close imo", hey, I don''t like king Crimson or VDGGb but I know whjen something has qualitty and those bands are extraordinaire, the fact i don't like them doesn't make them less good.
Anglagard is one of the most respected bands not only by fans (very few) but by experts and reviewrs that come here:
Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (66%)
Excellent addition to any prog music collection (18%)
Good, but non-essential (5%)
Collectors/fans only (6%)
Poor. Only for completionists (4%)
You can say you don't like them, but saying THEY DON'T COME CLOSE without giving a single argument, and force us to accept it after we took the time to say they are good making careful reviews.
Why don't they come close?
Are there mediocre performers?
Is their music technically poor?
Ov simply because you want to believe Prog died in 1981 (according to yopu, because the golden era of Symphonic ended in 1977 more or less?
Listen the other nine bands and then give me your opinion again.
To affiirm that all modern Prog bands are bad, you must have listened hours and hours of new bands, but seems you refuse to try anything new and just criticize modern Prog without a single valid argument.
Iván |
alot of kids on this site
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 17:56 |
raindance2007 wrote:
[
alot of kids on this site |
Yes, I notice that when i read your first post..."Modern prog is bad because I say so" 
If you aren't able to reply to an argumented post, avoid making strong statements that you are not able to support with valid arguments..
Iván
BTW: Kicking the board is not very mature
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 06 2007 at 18:06
|
|
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 18:11 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
[
alot of kids on this site |
Yes, I notice that when i read your first post..."Modern prog is bad because I say so"
If you aren't able to reply to an argumented post, avoid making strong statements that you are not able to support with valid arguments..
Iván
BTW: Kicking the board is not very mature |
I just don't rate modern music that's all. I find Porcupine tree, Tool, Spocks beard, Dream theatre, Flower kings, Opeth quite boring. They are amateur songs writers most of the time. Most of the young ones in here think they are 5 star prog. I think they are 2.5 star at best. Anglagard sound ok, but nothing special at all. They are no where near as good as Tull, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Yes, Camel etc. Wobbler sound like a complete copy of all the the big prog bands so they are can't be rated high
Edited by raindance2007 - October 06 2007 at 18:16
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65306
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 18:21 |
raindance2007 wrote:
I just don't rate modern music that's all. I find porcupine tree, Tool, Spocks beard, Dream theatre, Flower kings, Opeth quite boring. |
I'm not a big fan of those bands either but you're missing the point.. it's not really about personal taste itself, but rather the acceptance of it and learning opportunity it presents. I know many people who have exactly the same criticism of the classic prog bands when compared to the music they consider truly inventive and original ..besides, if you feel strongly enough about it than write some reviews, that's the point of reviewing; to express yourself in an insightful way even if everyone disagrees with your conclusions
Edited by Atavachron - October 06 2007 at 18:32
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 21:04 |
I'm not bothered how inventive and original something is, because if the song writers are amatuer then it doesn't make it very good. Those people are on the wrong wavelength imo
Edited by raindance2007 - October 06 2007 at 21:05
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Progressive vs Prog
