Symphonic vs Eclectic.

TGM: Orb wrote: My two favourite bands are on the eclectic side.

Hm. Actually, my three favourite albums. And Crimson and Der Graaf Generator are both remarkably consistent.

No contest for me.

Symphonic for me. 

This was really hard for me. Genesis is one of my favorite bands ever, as is Yes and ELP. However, like someone else said, King Crimson is better than either Yes or ELP (not Geneiss though, I hold to that). VDGG and Gentle Giant are also minor favorites of mine. I love the works of Genesis, Yes, and ELP an incredible amount, but when I consider how much they changed over time, I can't help but feel that the eclectic bands win the battle. I'm on record here as defending Genesis's post-Hacket period as being incredibly valid and artistic, but there's no doubt this change lost them a ton of fans. ELP's post Work's period is remarkably awful, though even on Love Beach there is some worthwhile music. Yes's post Howe period, while still strong, is also definitely a down turn and a time of great confusion (at least Genesis stuck to the same three members, while Yes could barely keep a line up together. The fact that Yes made any good music at all in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's is a testament to their skill). The symphonic bands simply don't hold up as well as the eclectic bands over time.

Raff wrote: Not an easy choice for me either, but in the end I went for Eclectic, especially on account of the mighty King Crimson. I've never been a big fan of Genesis (growing up in Seventies Italy meant seeing them treated more or less like gods, and that got on my nerves after a while), but Yes and ELP are definitely among my favourite prog bands. On the whole, if we are talking about the two subgenres and not just those two sets of bands, Eclectic wins hands down. Like many people here, I got into prog by way of Symphonic, but I've progressively (pun intended) moved away from it.

For me, symphonic prog has to be done right or it's irritating. Yes, Genesis, and ELP did it extremely well and could get away with the pomp. Eclectic prog has more of a free reign to screw around because hey it's weird: that's what they do. However, it can also lead to some major embarassments.

These six bands are 6 of the 8 first bands with which I was introduced to prog (The Flower Kings and Jethro Tull being the other two). I instantly fell in love with Yes, ELP, Genesis and King Crimson while I was repulsed by VDGG and indifferent to Gentle Giant. After a few years I grew weary of the 3 symph bands while my love of KC increased and VDGG became one of my favorite bands. I never really gave Gentle Giant a chance and I swear I will get around to it sometime.
Although without KC VDGG and GG I can only name two other bands classified as "eclectic:" Peter Hammill and The Tangent. I consider The Tangent to be more symphonic than eclectic and Peter Hammill is VDGG so my view of the sub-genre is incredibly narrow while I am far more familiar with Symphonic prog.

Anyway I vote for eclectic.

To see, at the moment when I'm typing this, the perfect equality of the two options is priceless. 

Yes, Genesis and Gentle Giant.

So symphonic by 2:1, but ELP are not bad too - far better than KC and VDGG.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I would rank the bands, VdGG > KC > Genesis > GG > Yes > ELP With a big drop off after GG. Eclectic by a good bit.

  Not a bad arrangement. I'd say for me it's Genesis>or= to King Crimson>Yes> or = to VDGG>ELP>GG.

I  love all six bands but Genesis is the only I like anywhere as much as I like KC and GG, so eclectic by a mile for me.