What defines Prog, for you?

I figured recently that it's the mind set that defines prog for me... I was wondeing over the fact how artists like say, Magma, Meshuggah, Dredg and Tangerine Dream are all prog while they barely have anything in common, so I realized that true "prog" in its most direct definition is the good old classic symohonic stuff, all prog beyod that is a genre defined by the attitude an artust has towards his music than the actual music itself.

what if I doubt and you don't - or vice versa? When there are huge discussions then usually many people think one way, and many others disagree.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: what if I doubt and you don't - or vice versa? When there are huge discussions then usually many people think one way, and many others disagree.

1. It's influential
2. It's influenced,
3. It's not really Prog in the traditional sense, but they they were a step ahead of the bands of their time and that justifies their inclusion.
4. It's Good music and I don't care about anything else.
5. I have an open mind and you are close minded (when this excuse is used, you must be 100% sure you're in front of a non Prog band)
6. If Iron Maiden (BOC, The Who, The Doors, etc)  is here, why not this band.
7. I've seen a lot of less Prog bands here.
8. M@X wants this site to be inclusive.
9. In the early 70's people believed they were Prog
10. And the aggressive: "You are nobody to tell me what is Prog and what is not"

Mike..........Check the list of doubtfukl aditions, and you will find in every case, one or more of this ten excuses or other less imaginative to justify an addition of a band everybdy knows is not Prog.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 12 2008 at 13:06

Treasure wrote: For me, it's mainly something with a higher quality of musicianship and ideas than average music. Also long songs rule.

^Like Can, you mean...