What you think?

Logan wrote: silverpot wrote: Pink Floyd not prog? How can A Saucerful of Secrets and Ummagumma not be considered to be prog?  Or were they just too early, and thus have to suffer the Cross Over label? Not to mention Atom Heart Mother which I have used to demonstrate the band's Prog value when people have said that Pink Floyd is not Prog. I meant as Prog as ELP. To me ELP is, generally, more representative of Prog as a genre than Pink Floyd, as I said earlier. -- the qualities that I traditionally associate with Prog.  I think it more likely if you talked with a classic rock knowledgable audience about them that they would be more likely to call ELP Prog than Pink Floyd.  I think ELP is generally more associated with the Prog movement, and I do consider it overall more quintessentially Prog.  That I much prefer Pink Floyd, especially the early period albums (the Ron Geesin/ Pink Floyd collborative Atom Heart Mother suite being my fave piece they worked on) doesn't change that perception of mine (perhaps I'm mistaken about the general public perception?) -- that ELP is more stereotypically associated with the Prog movement, and as  a Prog genre band than Pink Floyd.  It's kind of like, Pink Floyd made Prog, but ELP IS Prog (warts and all), if you understand me.

True that. I don't dispute ELP's rank in "progdom" by questioning why Floyd isn't among the 70s prog greats. To my mind they were pioneers, and as you say, AHM was very avant-garde, which at the time was synonymous with prog.

silverpot wrote: Logan wrote: silverpot wrote: Pink Floyd not prog? How can A Saucerful of Secrets and Ummagumma not be considered to be prog?  Or were they just too early, and thus have to suffer the Cross Over label? Not to mention Atom Heart Mother which I have used to demonstrate the band's Prog value when people have said that Pink Floyd is not Prog. I meant as Prog as ELP. To me ELP is, generally, more representative of Prog as a genre than Pink Floyd, as I said earlier. -- the qualities that I traditionally associate with Prog.  I think it more likely if you talked with a classic rock knowledgable audience about them that they would be more likely to call ELP Prog than Pink Floyd.  I think ELP is generally more associated with the Prog movement, and I do consider it overall more quintessentially Prog.  That I much prefer Pink Floyd, especially the early period albums (the Ron Geesin/ Pink Floyd collborative Atom Heart Mother suite being my fave piece they worked on) doesn't change that perception of mine (perhaps I'm mistaken about the general public perception?) -- that ELP is more stereotypically associated with the Prog movement, and as  a Prog genre band than Pink Floyd.  It's kind of like, Pink Floyd made Prog, but ELP IS Prog (warts and all), if you understand me. True that. I don't dispute ELP's rank in "progdom" by questioning why Floyd isn't among the 70s prog greats. To my mind they were pioneers, and as you say, AHM was very avant-garde, which at the time was synonymous with prog.

Atom Heart Mother was particularly avant-garde because of Ron Geesin's collaboration (I just like to mention his name so much becuase I often don't think he gets mentioned enough in relation to the suite).  In the early days it was more synomymous with experimental rock (and underground rock).  If I were to name eight big Prog names, Pink FLoyd would definitely be there, but if just naming four big names of Prog (ones that are pracrtically synonymous with Prog, well except that most people who know music of Genesis would think of the more "pop"phase) I thought the original topic starter's list a sensible one.  I actually prefer the other names that are commonly listed amongst the big eight (with the exception of King Crimson) than those in the topic-starters list. 

I think you'd have to be genre defining and have a significant body of quality releases to be able to sit with the major players. Only two bands seem to meet that criteria to me.

Univers Zero & Magma

Marillion  were pretty classy in the eighties, and even managed to remain an important band on the prog scene after Fish's leave.

Alitare wrote: I think the best prog bands were from the 1970's.  When you see Keith Emerson in a fancy suit playing his flying pianos, you can tell he was doing it sincerely from the heart. It was true art.  When David Bowie and Peter Gabriel were dressing up like women and foxes singing about starmen and harold barrels and silly english farts, you could tell it was sincere and emotionally devastating. When Rush were playing 20 minute long songs about galactic space wars and going bald, you just knew it was important and tear-jerking. When Uriah Heep wrote every goddamn beautiful, crippling note in 'Easy Livin'', you could tell it was like they stole aural manna from the heavens. When Tangerine Dream released a trillion albums containing only a few keyboard notes and a fat guy blowing into a megaphone while high on PCP, you could tell it was music for the ages. When Kansas gave us Dust in the Wind, intelligent, moving art was then born. But those Radiohead jackasses? They're just soulless fakers, every one.

  Can I nominate this as post of the year and keep it saved on my clipboard to deploy in every idiotic "no modern stuff can hold a candle to the 70s" thread? 

BRAVO ALITARE!

Pink Floyd and Genesis are hard acts to match, but personally, I think Mostly Autumn and IQ come pretty damn close.

Hercules wrote:   And KC would never be in the top 4 of 70s prog; their album sales were miniscule compared to Tull, Genesis, Floyd, Yes and ELP.

IIRC the last batch of King Crimson reissues had pictures of the charts from when the albums were released, and those early KC albums ended up fairly high on all of them

 

Alitare wrote: When Tangerine Dream released a trillion albums containing only a few keyboard notes and a fat guy blowing into a megaphone while high on PCP, you could tell it was music for the ages.

quote for truth


Edited by Triceratopsoil - October 30 2011 at 17:45

For the record.

Edited by dr prog - October 30 2011 at 19:54

I think my eyes are glazing over.

Either modern prog does its own thing or is duplicating old things and therefore can't possibly as good as the old prog.


Edited by Slartibartfast - October 31 2011 at 04:08

the musicianship in Toto is on pair with the best of prog but they did not play progressive music, just good music ,  but i think the skill in the band pushed the envelope to some degree even if it doesent sound that way, they did music with such preission and knowledge that they must have moved some bounderies, few bands had two keybord virtouse in one band who could play twin key solos, or had world music percushionist in  Lenny Castro on all recrods who brought in a world music falvour to early Toto music..

Edited by aginor - October 31 2011 at 07:04