Is less more?

Well sometimes it is for me...but the truth is that one of the things I like most about prog is it´s complexey (in most cases), so less hardle ever is more!

         Some people say that prog has to be complex.... a complex instrumentation, with  complex solo showcases, complex lyrics, complex time signatures, complex scales and over all a complex feeing, but there are a lot of progsongs that don´t have all of these requirements.

For example.

   1. Echoes by pink floyd. There are no complex solo showcases, the instrumentation at least in the pompei version is the basic (keyboard, guitar, bass, drums), there are no complex time signatures and it´s a great progressive epic.

  2. And you and i by Yes. No complex solo showcases ,great lyrics, great instrumentation, what a feeling (amazing song).

  3. Frame by frame (King Crimson). Another great song, four master playing at the same time, sounds incredible, virtuoso showcases, complex time signature and harmony, enough feeling but the lyirics................. .

  I think that when a prog rock band make a song, they do what they have to do no more no less,  a complex solo by steve howe wouldn´t fit in "and you and i" for example.

Conclusion. prog rock songs are as complex as they have to be.

 In my personal opinion, Supper´s ready is a complete Prog rock masterpiece example, solo showcases, complex time signatures and harmony, amazing lyrics, great instrumentation, and over all an amazing feeling.

Depends on the artist...

Look at ELP... they throw everything into songs and it's amazing.  Then look at Hawkwind... repetition and simplicity yet it's amazing.

Sometimes. Pink Floyd is a good example. But also bands like Genesis, Gentle Giant, Camel and lots of others knew more about "less is more" than people often think.

Yes was famous for a lot of virtuoso players playing all together at the same time. If I remember well, Bill Bruford once listened to a Yes tape and he said: "This must be Yes, because all of them are playing at the same time." But even Yes knew about "less is more".

Still, I'm quite a boombastic guy, and I do like it sometimes when bands like ELP and Yes really live out the adagium: "less is a bore".

On the other hand, I do like Pink Floyd in their very "simple" moments. Some people think it's "simplistic" but it's not. Absolutely not.

Less can be more somtimes, certainly in prog rock..

As a teenager I was attracted to prog because of it's complexity, in particular it's rythmic complexity. As I've got older I'm more appreciative of it's emotional content, and the complexity has become less important to me. I've learned to love songs like 'Afterglow' I hated that song as a kid because it wasn't 15 minutes long, meandering off in all directions on a free form jazz/rock exploration.

Sometimes you can express what you want without constant soloing, and alternating time signatures. Good musicians and songwriters are able to make effective use of 'less' and it's easy, IMO, to spot those musicians who write basic music because it's all their capable of.

There are  definatly times in a Floyd song I crave more complex time signatures and there are times listening to Spiral Architect or Andromeda I wish that the rule "lesser is more" would apply .

 For me good prog is a balancing act of serenity and fusion and a tastey melody .. introspective lyrics and time signatures to think about.

As a representative of Radiohead, i must ask you to look at them....

They have never released a song that is more than 6.5 minutes long, they've never used overly complex instrumentation, they very rarely do instrumentals & their use of time signatures isn't particularly groundbreaking.

Yet, they are a million times more impressive than most Prog bands around today. In my very important opinion.

P.S. Their use of light shows has never been OTT, yet they put on a very overwhelming live show.

This is actually a very good poll, I think (much better than the endless 'band X is better than band Y' fare...), and it's also a tough one to answer.

For personal taste, I'd go for music that has a recognisable song structure in most cases (probably why I don't really go for bands like Gryphon and Happy The Man as much as many do on this site), yet has more than enough intricacy and musicianship to keep things varied. Very few bands can get away with having very little intricacy and flash though imo, so I'd go for the 'only sometimes' option, as imo songs with too basic a structure can pall somewhat after a while, but those with too much going on can get to be really heavy going....

The same way a good writer can say much in just a few words, a good composer should be able to convey what he wants without having to resort to lots of props (read complexities). Not that I dislike complexity in itself; it is sometimes necessary to keep things interesting - like a movie with a good complicated plot. I just don’t like complexity for its own sake.