Good point. I'm not aware of Warhorse, or Captain Beyond to be honest, so I'll take your word for it. Deep Purple??? They were blues/rock/metal etc, and not prog, I agree. Just because they had an organist

I guess my criteria for a band being prog would probably not be met by ELO, but by the same token niether by Atomic Rooster and Deep Purple.

than why is styx on prog archives? 

What about Chicago from 69-75?  thats prog.

They added Styx? Grrrr...

There goes the argument...

ELO is PROG, Wooo Hoooo!

What is Gorp?

Styx are poppy. Elo are poppy. James last does alot of classical stuff but you would not say he was a classical performer.

My first boyfreind was an ELO fan and i had to endure many nights listening to them .

I consider them Pop, but i can understand why they would now be thought of as Prog to some. Same can be said of Queen, Wizzard and many bands from the 70's

I agree with Richard. If they'd carried on the way Roy Wood had intended, they may have gone on to become a good prog band.

When they were formed, Wood/Lynne said that the intention was to carry on from where the Beatles left off with "Strawberry fields forever", so that gives a hint of the original intended direction.

Jeff Lynne initially kept on a similar path, and I'd argue that "Eldorado" was a good prog album, but after that they quickly went pop. If you look at the double album "Out of the blue", almost every track has the same simple verse/chorus structure.

They made great music, with a lot of symphonic input, but I wouldn't say they fit in here.

Come on guys, the fact that they used some violins, cellos and other ussually classical instruments, doesn't make them progressive.

The musician not the instrument makes the music, give a mellotron to Michael Jackson and his music wouldn't change a bit towards progressive, of course I'm not comparing a good band as ELO with Wacko Jacko, it's only an example.

ELO was an eclectic band, they played Rock, POP and Disco music (Discovery is as Disco oriented as  the 70's Bee Gees) with classical instruments, and they were good on that, I really love A New World Record, but they never tried to play prog'.

You can play plain POP with an Orchestra and still will be POP (James Last or Ray Conniff as someone mentioned before), maybe even worst and turn to MUZAK but never prog'.

ELO never created anything different (Maybe in the first two albums, but still not so sure), they changed the way of playing mainstream, but that's all.

At least STYX  are really a good example of a band that tries to settle between mainstream and Prog', their arrangements are surely complex in SOME tracks, but ELO only played mainstream with orchestra.

If you ask me if they were good, I believe they were really good, but the did nothing risky enough to be considered Prog'. Not everything we like has to be prog' to be good.

Iván

CFF:

Your basic premise is unarguably correct: there are, indeed (in my and others' opinions) at least a few bands on PA that probably do not belong.  And there are at least a few bands who are not on PA who (again, in my and others' opinions) should be.

The ultimate decision for this rests with the webmasters.  Even I, as what amounts to a "senior administrator," have little or no control over this.  The best anyone can do is make a cogent argument for why a particular band belongs on PA, the webmasters consider it and, if they agree, they add that band, and if they do not, they don't.  And although it is true that a great number of people supporting a particular band's inclusion carries some weight, the ultimate decision is based on whether the webmasters feel that the band fits their chosen definition of "progressive rock" - which, of course, they have every right to do, given that they developed and control the site.

I have never known Max and the other webmasters to be arbitrary or capricious in their decision to add or not add a band.  Personally, I agree that Styx does not belong here.  (Indeed, I do not think Supertramp belongs here either, as much as I love them.  As I have argued, if Supertramp belongs here, then so do 10CC - who are equally "progressive" in the same way - and XTC, who are more "progressive" than both of them.  Yet Max et al have made no move to add either of them, despite strong arguments and quite a bit of support from other members).  Note that I was successful in getting Max to add The Church to the site only because I made a solid, clear and ongoing case based on the majority of their most recent albums, and the music thereon.  And I am certain Max et al took the time to listen to some of those albums, and arrived at the conclusion that The Church fit the site's description of "progressive."

Ultimately, this debate - who belongs and who doesn't - will probably continue as long as PA exists.  However, the final decision rests with the webmasters, and we must accept that, like the judges on Jeopardy, "their decision is final," and it must be respected.

Peace.

I have to say that I have never considered ELO (or Supertramp, or 10cc) to be Progressive Rock. I enjoy their music, but have always considered their music to be Pop. I really don't think that they should be added to the Archives. (And I agree with maani re Supertramp and 10cc.)

Foxy wrote: I do not seen much difference (aesthetically of course) between ELO and Manfred Mann,

Obviously, you have not listened to Nightengales and Bombers of Solar Fire. They may change your mind. The Roaring Silence was very prog as well.

ELO: NO

ELOY: YES

I do not know enough of ELO to make a good judgement call. The only stuff I have heard is on the radio and it sounds vaguely proggish, but still more poppish to me. I would have to hear more of their"non commercial" stuff before coming to a conclusion

Of course they should be added, I mean if so many recomend Radiohead, ELO is then just as good (even better IMHO).

_______

Lunar

I think that ELO produced more proggy music (early in their careers) than, say, Procul Harum, or Styx - and definitely more than Uriah Heep, all of whom are far less proggy than Deep Purple or Supertramp - does everyone think that "Dreamer" and "Breakfast in America" are all Supertramp did? "Crime of the Century" and "Even in the Quietest moments" are magnificent prog albums without a Mellotron in sight! And as for the Purps, well, if you think that "Smoke on the Water", "Black Night" and "Highway Star" are their limits, then you haven't heard "In Rock", "Made In Japan" or a dozen other great albums where the music goes way beyond rock'n'roll and well into prog territory. I mean, excluding Deep Purple because they have a strong rock'n'roll link is like excluding Jethro Tull because they have a strong folk link, or excluding Gong because they're too Jazzy.

...so did the Moodies - and I'm not saying that they should be in the archives either...

How silly of ELO to rip off Robbie Williams like that.

Blurring the lines here, I agree that ELO are not prog but they have used all the ingredients of prog at one time or another eg, long songs (Kuama), concept albums (Eldorado), orchestras (any album really), really silly loon pants (see previous example) and were on the Harvest label in the UK (home to many prog rock acts).

They seem to be caught in a genre of their own making - lucky sods  

Trouserpress wrote:

That's as maybe, Cert, but IMO ELO are simply too simplistic in their approach to composition and arrangement to be classified as prog. So they used strings. So did Robbie Williams. ELO weren't really doing anything that new.

Have to agree 100% with you, as I said a few posts ago ELO played Rock, POP and Disco Music with a few violins and Cellos, the same did James Last and Ray Coniff and that doesn't make the prog.

Even the tracks like Rockaria that try to sound operatic (even if it's a joke) are only some chords and a a guy singing as a So´prano over a classical rock & roll rhythm, the same gose for other good songs like Living Thing, etc, only attacches applied over simp´le arrangements.

Remember Stevie Wonder used massive Mellotron (A 100% progressive rock instrument) and he's not even near to prog.

Iván

I'd like to hear a few "pro" comments from those who voted in favour, as I listened to "Time" and "Out of the Blue" tonight to see if I could hear any prog.

What I heard was great rock'n'roll with an eye on disco(very!), with very clever arrangements and synth/string parts - and even a prologue and epilogue on "Time"; but all-in-all, two collections of 3-4 minute rock songs with flat 4/4 beats. Jeff Lynne's voice serves to underline that - pure rock'n'roll!

"The News" on "Time" had probably the proggiest flavour of all, but was still a 3 minute song with sound effects that didn't really journey anywhere. I think that anyone who hears prog in ELO should have a listen to Boston, Dire Straits or even ABBA: All three have progressive tendencies and all wrote fine music - but not prog.

I had a very enjoyable evening's listening, thanks to this thread

All:

First, Cert, although I love both albums, I do not agree with you that Crime of the Century or Even in the Quietest Moments is "prog" as generally defined.  Which brings me to a point I have made before.

There is an "unspoken" category of prog called "progressive pop."  No, this is not an oxymoron or an attempt to be humorous.  In my opinion, that category would include: Supertramp, 10CC, XTC, Klaatu (though they come close to "real" prog on "Hope"), Styx (or at least some of it), Starcastle (...), some Queen, and other groups.  I have tried to make this case a number of times, with no success.

Perhaps some of the new members will see the reasoning behind this idea.

What think ye?

Peace.

I'd second a progressive pop category, it would make sense to me.

ELO for me is a great band (I have a 2CD 'best of' collection), which brings back memories of the seventies. Consistently high quality singles, which still sound fresh 25 years later. No prog rock though. 

We'll have to agree to disagree then, maani - "Crime of the Century" contains all the subjective "feel" of "real prog" to my ears - and many objectively identifable elements too.

I understand the term progressive pop to include the Beatles and other pop bands whose albums go way beyond the standard collection of 3 minute tunes - even into concept territory, but do not develop thematic material, rather choose to experiment within the confines of a song. This is where Supertramp differ, especially on COTC, where thematic material is developed, tempi shift, and song structures are elongated. Admittedly, COTC isn't pure concept - but neither is ITCOTCK. 

On the other hand, I hear nothing in, for example, Uriah Heep or ELO that is remotely proggy, or even progressive in the strict sense. Now Queen...

ELO IN THE ARECHIVES?

IN A WORD...NO DEFINATELY NOT(OKAY THREE WORDS THEN!!)

like many bands from the late 60s/early seventies they were influenced by the musical"attitudes"of the time and having formed at a time of psychadelic and general EXPERIMENTATION they may have elements of the style that led to what we generally consider to be prog(as many bands at the time (eg Deep Purple in their very ealy days "Book Of Talysin "etc) did)

BUT LIKE BANDS SUCH AS PURPLE they did not pursue that path  and although i partly agree With Jim(GASP!!!) in That some of their early albums had at least a progressive feel(at times)) i would have to be in the no camp

perhaps we could have some sort of "disputed" section!!

C'MON...What About the great prog masterpiece they did with Olivia Newton John.....Xanadu

You've been a bit quiet lately Maani, good to see you stirring up some debate!

I broadly agree with your suggestion of a prog pop category, but are you advocating bands which fall within it should or should not be in the archives? I wouldn't have a problem with the some bands you mention being here (some are of course), although I have doubts about 10CC and Queen. I acknowledge Queen did some pretty fancy (not to say great) work, but I reckon they are overall far more pop/glam than prog.

Where I disagree is in your proposal that Supertramp are prog pop and not prog. For me, "COTC" is one of the great prog albums. As Cert says, it has all the right ingredients. The fact that it also contained the hit single "Dreamer" (which it is easy to forget was at the time very "different") should not detract from its credentials. "EITQM" I accept had a bit more pop, but "Fool's Overture" alone is a classic piece of prog. I consider the music of Hodgson era Supertramp to be quite different from the other bands you mention.

I think is is Dick Heath who has made the point a number of times that the definition of prog these days seems to have narrowed somewhat from that of the early and mid 70's. I don't think there was any doubt at the time of COTC's release that it was a prog album.

I can't let Certif1ed go completely unscathed though, in that I do feel Uriah Heep are a perfectly legitimate inclusion in the archives. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about their music, but tracks such as "Salisbury"and "Paradise/The spell" are to me, excellent prog.

All:

Cert: Eminem "progressive rap?"  You may not be far from the truth...

Jim: Another thread on the definition of "progressive rock?"  Over my dead body.  (This is where having the ability to delete threads comes in handy...)

Easy Livin: You almost convinced me re COTC, until you suggested that "I don't think there was any doubt at the time of COTC's release that it was a prog album."  Poppycock.  1974 (the year of its release) saw the release of The Lamb, The Power and the Glory, Red, Starless and Bible Black, Remember the Future, Apostrophe (Zappa) and Journey to the Center of the Earth, among others.  You would be hard pressed to convince me that COTC belongs in that grouping.

However, 1974 also saw the release of Sheet Music (10CC) and Sheer Heart Attack (Queen).  This is where I would place it.  Because although neither of these albums is as "thematic" as COTC, the approaches were similar, and the ultimate end result was more similar among SM, SHA and COTC than it was between COTC and the other truly "prog" albums mentioned above.

However, there is another issue here.  Even if we concede that COTC is "prog" as we define that term generally, why should Supertramp be included here simply because one album (and maybe some of one other album) happened to be "prog?"  Don't we define a group as "prog" only when the majority of their output is clearly "progressive?"  If so, Supertramp fails this test, and does not warrant a place on the site - unless we create a new category, either the one I suggested or something else that would include a group of their ilk.  Otherwise, they are no more "prog" than many groups who happened to put out one or two prog albums among, say, ten or twelve albums.  (Zep comes to mind here; most of PG and at least some of Presence is as "prog," or moreso, than much of COTC.)

I remain unconvinced that COTC is "prog," or that Supertramp deserves a place on PA.

Peace.

I agree with Maani on the idea of progressive rap not being that naff. Eminem definatley has something that raises him above the norm.Musically he pushes the boundaries but unfortunatley his persona is pure pop.If you see any of his live performances it is no diferent than watching any of the boy bands, very manipulative in a shallow way.

Certainly would not come in Neil Pearts idea of pro rock.

Has anyone seen Eminem's new video?

I saw on the news (today, oh boy...)that Michael Jackson wants it banned from TV, as it shows Eminem made up as MJ, with children bouncing on his bed - and then his nose falls off!

MJ says it's "disrespectful".

Eminem - "respectful"???

I WANT TO SEE IT!!!!

MJ is giving it more publicity than it probably deserves - but this is the sort of thing that sells records these days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1326881,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1326881,00.html

maani wrote: Easy Livin: You almost convinced me re COTC, ................. However, there is another issue here.  Even if we concede that COTC is "prog" as we define that term generally, why should Supertramp be included here simply because one album (and maybe some of one other album) happened to be "prog?"  Don't we define a group as "prog" only when the majority of their output is clearly "progressive?"  If so, Supertramp fails this test, and does not warrant a place on the site - unless we create a new category, either the one I suggested or something else that would include a group of their ilk.  Otherwise, they are no more "prog" than many groups who happened to put out one or two prog albums among, say, ten or twelve albums.  (Zep comes to mind here; most of PG and at least some of Presence is as "prog," or moreso, than much of COTC.)

I'm glad I nearly convinced you Maani, but I suspect you're just being kind!

I would just clarify though, I'm not basing my view that Supertramp deserve to be here just because of "COTC" and "Fool's Overture". I mentioned those specifically because they had already been brought up in the thread. Supertramp's history was similar to Genenis, in that their early albums were their most progressive, with later albums moving into the prog pop category (up to "Famous last words").  COTC was however their best album.