So, Who Exactly is a Member of the Big Six?

LAM-SGC wrote: Big Six?   I know there are differences in UK/USA and generational approaches to this. So, I want to say that in the 80s and 90s in the UK we spoke about the Big Five. I first came across the term Big Six only about ten years ago in a mag or on a forum. And as a kid in secondary school in London in the 70s, we didn't even use the term Big 5, we just spoke about the top prog bands of the day: ELP Genesis Jethro Tull Pink Floyd Yes And it was always those five, but of course Mike Oldfield was always suggested by some instead of the "heavy-folk rock" band Jethro Tull or the "psych-pop" band Pink Floyd. I have to touch on the subject of King Crimson of course, none of us in secondary school in London in the 70s who were listening to rock - from Led Zeppelin to Uriah Heep to ELO to the Sex Pistols - had any knowledge about King Crimson or Caravan or Gentle Giant, they just weren't on our prog rock and rock radar. I'm sure other kids knew about them.

That's interesting! I like how you explained the music scene and how you and your friend came to know prog through certain bands. For me, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it just sort of seeped in from a variety of sources. Styx and Queen were played a lot in my house, but when I moved to south Texas, there were strong connections to Rush and Triumph, as San Antonio had a major role in expanding the influence of those bands. At the same time, some prog and prog-related bands were making it onto the Top40 lists and MTV, especially Pink Floyd, Asia, Saga, Yes (3.0), Emerson, Lake and Powell, etc., while classic rock stations played a lot of Jethro Tull, early Yes, and Pink Floyd. Retracing and rediscovering early work of these bands (or earlier renditions of these bands), I expanded my influences. Now, having a "Big Six" makes good sense if you were going to make a sort of tree with various branches. They would be at the trunk, whereas proto-prog is more like the roots. Big branches would be bands like Rush, Marillion, etc., and it has just expanded from there. I think of PA as this big tree.

Psychedelic Paul wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Big four of neo imo: Marillion, IQ, Pendragon, Pallas. I think if we extended it to five we could add Arena. Who would be the sixth one? Magenta!

Cristi wrote: Jaketejas wrote: ^ So, Yes with Trevor Rabin then? Yes with everyone

Great answer! All 20 +/- 2. I can't keep up with all the changes.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Big four of neo imo: Marillion, IQ, Pendragon, Pallas. I think if we extended it to five we could add Arena. Who would be the sixth one?

Lewian wrote: Love that film, nice that it comes up here!

Jared wrote: Cristi wrote: The Big 4 of thrash were Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax.  Anvil were a heavy metal band, and not even that good in my humble opinion.  You played a straight bat to my joke... I was trying to make you laugh... I guess you've never seen 'The Story Of Anvil' about how they started out as a Thrash band around the same time, but unlike the Big 4, didn't make it big... it's quite funny and sad in equal measure, but the doc is without doubt the best thing they ever produced.

Jared wrote: Cristi wrote: "big" in the original "big 4 of thrash" , meant popular, famous.  So, would that include Anvil then?

Jaketejas wrote: ^ So, Yes with Trevor Rabin then?

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: richardh wrote: any list without King Crimson and Pink Floyd will always seem very odd to me I think some people are just doing personal lists which is not the same otherwise it should be called a "personal big six list."

richardh wrote: any list without King Crimson and Pink Floyd will always seem very odd to me

Two absolute iconic bands within progressive rock bands imho