Are they progressive?

Radiohead are definitely prog. Their attitude is maybe the proggiest of all bands of this millennium. We just have to admit that the prog of the 70's doesn't define the prog of today. Jonny Greenwood alone would take any band to the Olympus of prog.

Seems a strange list of bands you have there DP. Some are from the 70's, some are more recent, and at least one is not listed on this site as prog anyway. Why did you choose those particular bands for debate? Even musically, there seems little to connect them. What do you think is common to them?

Edited by Easy Livin - March 27 2010 at 10:55

Still not sure where you're coming from here DP. There seems to be litle in common between the bands you have chosen.  Are you looking for separate debates about each of these bands?

I was against Radioghead inclusion when suggested, still don't believe their Prog credentials (for whatever the credentials count) will grant them a position among the icons of Progressive Rock, but my opinion has changed a lot and I wouldn't question their inclusion today, because they took influences from Prog symbols as Pink Floyd, worked them in their own way and released an original and quality product that at least has several characteristics of our beloved genre.

^ Ivan - Radiohead may not be Prog rock but they are progressive and they do bring a heightened form of music to the masses.

I add my voice to everyone who says Can is a prog band. We had in the past discussion about the difference between prog and progressive but Can is an example (actually one of the best examples IMO) to a band that is both.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: If they are not part of the Progressuive ocj genre...They don't belog here, no matter how progressive (adjective) they are....And that description "they do bring a heightened form of music to the masses", sounds incredibly prog snob even to me, the purpose of Prog is to bring the joy of music to a sector of the population thatwants something different to top 40's, not to enlighten anybody...At the end, It's just Rock & Roll.   But I said I believe they are part of the genre, unlike I thought some years ago, not enough to put them in the level of Yes, Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Kansas, Renaisance, Caravan, Magma, etc, but enough to be here.   Iván

Every genre on this site will have bands that can be seen as questionable as theres no set in stone cast for what prog rock should be, and most bands have at least one track that can be considered an attempt at pop, the trick is deciding how far a band generally goes and in which direction. Naturally this will lead to a few contraversial inclusions.

there must be some misunderstanding... whoo... there must be some kind of a mistake... whoooo..

In my opinion, Radiohead is progressive in the sense that they defied the traditional boundaries of music at the time and progressed music into further realms.  Ivan's right, they're progressive in a certain sense, but not to the same extent or to a similar sense that aforementioned bands are.

Since no one has addressed Neurosis or Cult of Luna:

Neurosis definitely fits the bill of progressive.  They practically invented the Post Metal genre.  They also fit numerous other traditional progressive rock archetypes, like using nontraditional instruments for the genre, experimenting with time signatures and soundscapes, and blending elements of other genres to create something wholly different.
Cult of Luna is a fairly straightforward post metal band, a genre that is considered progressive for its nature and purpose, and certain nuances, but CoL has shown a lot of progressiveness in their latest two releases, doing more experimental stuff with their time signatures, texturing, instruments, and atmosphere, so even inside the post metal genre, I would say they are deserving of their progressive title.