I chose a few bands I've been looking into. I have no opinion on any of these personally, as I haven't heard enough music from any of them. And yes, I know Smashing Pumpkins is not even close, but I read somewhere that they were prog-oriented alternative.... Anyway, don't post stuff saying "hey, this should be here" or "that isn't even close" because it's useless. Just focus on what IS in this poll, and tell me why you voted the way you did. That's ALL you should do.

I own Captain beefheart..I forget which one...something mask replica...I don't know. It just seems like silly lyrics with lots of jamming

Radiohead...no. I listened to their so-called Proggy cd and thought maybe 1-2 songs but overall I would say they were alternative

Smashing Pumpkins absolutely not. They can be a little trippy at times but i wouldn't say they were experimental....fairly straight forward alternative.

Whoever told you the Smashing Pumpkins are prog oriented doesn't know what they're talking about.  There are maybe one or two songs on Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness that could be passed off as prog, but that album features everything from death metal to melodic piano based instrumentals.

I agree Smashing Pumpkins are not in the slightest bit proggy.

Depends how we're going to define progressive. Beefheart albums like Trout Mask and the later Ice Cream For Crow were definitely a progression from most of the music his contemporaries were making at the time, so are prog by definition.

 Even the big names like Genesis, Yes, ELP, Floyd weren't always progressive, in that they didn't move on from what  they themselves had done previously. Yes only did so until 90125 - which saw them moving OUT of prog - Genesis' last truly progressive album was Abacab, never to return, the last couple of ELP albums were AOR pap - yes, even Pirates, which sounds like Lloyd Webber - and Floyd's SOUND progressed not at all after Dark Side of the Moon.

 Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins, while both excellent at times, lack both the spirit of adventure AND the sense of humour essential in prog. OK Computer and The Bends were fantastic, but anyone could listen to a few Boards of Canada/Squarepusher releases on Warp and come up with Kid A. As for the Pumpkins, they always seemed to be playing miserabilist neo-Goth (God, those awful lyrics!) with a bit of Thin Lizzy thrown in.

 And if ELO are prog, so are Oasis. Each took a different aspect of the classic Beatles sound and ran with it. But prog? I think not. Only prog ELO track that springs to mind is 10538 Overture (as "borrowed" by both Paul Weller for Changingman and Ian Brown for My Star).

Nizzy wrote:  Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins, while both excellent at times, lack both the spirit of adventure AND the sense of humour essential in prog. OK Computer and The Bends were fantastic, but anyone could listen to a few Boards of Canada/Squarepusher releases on Warp and come up with Kid A. As for the Pumpkins, they always seemed to be playing miserabilist neo-Goth (God, those awful lyrics!) with a bit of Thin Lizzy thrown in.

Woooo! That’s some statement, I am a Radiohead, Boards of Canada and Warp Records fan too but surely you are not saying that Radiohead are in some way inferior to them!!?  Radiohead’s diversity into electronica proves that the band is not afraid to evolve and progress and indeed have a spirit of adventure. But I understand what you are saying about Kid A borrowing from those Warp bands for instance ‘idioteque’ would sound like Aphex Twin and ‘ Tree Fingers’ could be BOC if not for one massive big difference and that is Thom Yorkes emotional and heart rendering lyrics and vocals! I think what totally sets Radiohead apart from other electroncia artists is their music so much more passionate, emotive. But they don’t belong in the archives though.

Sense of humour essential in prog?  Try telling Tool that

Radiohead should be here as they are sufficiently experimental and are not easy to slot into any particular genre.They certainly could not be accused of courting radio airplay despite their name.

ELO should not.They are a pop group.Only their very early stuff has any relevance to prog.If they are brought in then I would think that the people who run this site have lost the plot completely.

Tool with no sense of humour, Petra? What about Maynard's wigs? Wait a minute, maybe they ain't meant to be funny...

 Keep spreading the word re Warp though, specially Squarepusher. That boy's got a strange brain but I like what he's thinking

I vote for Radiohead - and would vote for Muse, who are easily as progressive as any of the prog metal bands I've heard to date.

What many seem to overlook with Radiohead is exactly what Richard H is pointing out - they explore, they progress. Forget the overall "flavour" - this "alt" or "indie" label belongs to some of their earlier material, and perhaps some of the more recent. Calling Radiohead "indie" is like calling Jethro Tull "folk", Mahavishnu Orchestra "jazz", or Zappa "Classical". It just misses the point of prog, IMO.

I cannot agree that Radiohead are prog. They are a very good band who do experiment, but do not try to push the boundaries with their musicianship and instrumentation.Nor are they symphonic.

To my mind, if Radiohead are prog then so too are U2, which is patently ridiculous.U2 constantly evolve their sound and experiment with different influences, but this does not make them progressive rock.

They are both blinding rock bands and difficult to pigeonhole.To me Rush (my favourite group) have not really been Prog Rock since Moving Pictures either. I would put them in the same ballpark as U2 and Radiohead.

Hi Reed.

 I think Rush still qualify as a prog band because they have progressed, simple as that. I was stunned at the recent Glasgow show just how well the newer material, much of which I had been unfamiliar with until I bought Rush In Rio, fitted in with the old classics.

 It's made me want to back and buy up all the back catalogue stuff I've missed out on, not having gone out and bought a new album since Hold Your Fire.

 Certif1ed, you're right - Muse are DEFINITELY prog, and pretty good with it.

Although i'd like to have RADIOHEAD in here i know they don't belong... like so many other heavy metal bands that has been added lately. anyway, RADIOHEAD has a lot of good vibes and tunes to be considered "prog", at least they are chainging the way we see at popular and rock music.

peace

Nizzy wrote: Depends how we're going to define progressive. Beefheart albums like Trout Mask and the later Ice Cream For Crow were definitely a progression from most of the music his contemporaries were making at the time, so are prog by definition.  Even the big names like Genesis, Yes, ELP, Floyd weren't always progressive, in that they didn't move on from what  they themselves had done previously. Yes only did so until 90125 - which saw them moving OUT of prog - Genesis' last truly progressive album was Abacab, never to return, the last couple of ELP albums were AOR pap - yes, even Pirates, which sounds like Lloyd Webber - and Floyd's SOUND progressed not at all after Dark Side of the Moon.  Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins, while both excellent at times, lack both the spirit of adventure AND the sense of humour essential in prog. OK Computer and The Bends were fantastic, but anyone could listen to a few Boards of Canada/Squarepusher releases on Warp and come up with Kid A. As for the Pumpkins, they always seemed to be playing miserabilist neo-Goth (God, those awful lyrics!) with a bit of Thin Lizzy thrown in.  And if ELO are prog, so are Oasis. Each took a different aspect of the classic Beatles sound and ran with it. But prog? I think not. Only prog ELO track that springs to mind is 10538 Overture (as "borrowed" by both Paul Weller for Changingman and Ian Brown for My Star).

1st...Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon=Animals. Also when I listen to the Wall I do NOT think Dark Side of The Moon

2nd...to describe Progressive as whether or not a band has progressed from 1 album to the next isn't the definition of progressive. Under your logic then Genesis- Foxtrot and Selling England By the Pound aren't progressive because they used the same basic formula to create these albums as they did in Nursery Cryme....I won't even start analyzing Yes as my head will start to spin. Progressive is not a scale to measure how far the band has moved on since its previous album. That would make the Violent Femmes the most progressive band on the planet as every one of their releases would serve to alienate some group of fans as they continued to experiment and change their style on a yearly basis. While I love the Violent Femmes I wouldn't dream of calling them progressive!!

Cheers....welcome to the Forums

gdub - well, when you put it like that...!

 OK, agreed mate. I just hate the idea that you need a cape and a degree in Dungeons & Dragons to be a prog band.

 Re Genesis, I was thinking more Lamb to Abacab. Now that's progress (if not PROGress).

 What about the Femmes - is Gano still rockin'?

 Thanks for your welcome.

Bands like "Dream theatre" are not prog: really too binary and basic to deserve

the term "prog"

It's prog, compared to the nowadays sh*tty mainstream...

sorry for Dream theatre fans...

frenchie wrote: i am strongly opossed to radiohead being on here. even tho i love them loads i just dont think they qualify as prog. they have many prog elements but not enough to make them a prog band.

Couldnt agree more. No link between Prog Rock and Radiohead. In fact Radiohead is a poor cusin to Portishead.

Smashing Pumpkins shouldnt be here eigther.

__________

Lunar

Certif1ed wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I cannot agree that Radiohead are prog. They are a very good band who do experiment, but do not try to push the boundaries with their musicianship and instrumentation.Nor are they symphonic. I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!! Do a bit more research! OK Computer is quite symphonic in places - quite Barclay James Harvest-like, I feel,  but there are hundreds of prog bands that aren't symphonic, so this is a null argument! To my mind, if Radiohead are prog then so too are U2, which is patently ridiculous.U2 constantly evolve their sound and experiment with different influences, but this does not make them progressive rock. No, the two bands could not be more dissimilar. There is a difference between bands that experiment within a format, and bands that push the envelope and develop their own sound. U2 are in the former category and Radiohead are in the latter. They are both blinding rock bands and difficult to pigeonhole.To me Rush (my favourite group) have not really been Prog Rock since Moving Pictures either. I would put them in the same ballpark as U2 and Radiohead. Yes it's difficult to pigeonhole some bands, but I would never put U2 and Radiohead into the same ballpark. I can't think of a single U2 song that doesn't have a simple verse/chorus rock-song structure.

I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!!

OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement:

Do a bit more research!

Uncalled for!

I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead.

And no,I am not trolling and yes I do understand/have comitted to memory the civility thread.

And yes, I have had a bad day at the office!

Prog's greatest asset is also it's Achilles heel in that to be a progressive band you have to do exactly that; progress. If it's in your nature to push the boundaries and look for new sounds/arrangements/melodies then there is always a danger that you will outgrow your roots.

For some that has given us some terrific bands (YES, King Crimson, Mars Volta, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, etc) for others it has spelled their doom (err...that'll be Genesis then  )

It would be incredibly hard to DEFINE what a prog band is (many have tried) but I'm sure most people would agree that they'd know it when they hear it. 

By the way, ABBA is NOT prog.

The issue of who belongs and who doesn't is in the hands of the Admin Group.

Us forum members need to layout the supporting facts on why a band should be included. The fact that anyone believes a band should not be in the archive isn't really at issue. Maani made a great arguement for the inclusion of the Church, quite well I might add, and they were added. That is our part of the scheme. Find a band that you think fits the criteria of the archive and put forth the evidence to gain admittance.

Golly good debate, wot?

danbo wrote:  That is our part of the scheme. Find a band that you think fits the criteria of the archive and put forth the evidence to gain admittance. Golly good debate, wot?

Too true danbo, some odd, time signatures, a mellotron and a dodgy haircut do NOT, a prog band make

1st  David Bowie 60s-00s Rock
1st  Captain Beefheart 60s-80s Rock
1st  Electric Light Orchestra 70s-00s Rock
1st  Peter Gabriel 70s-00s Rock
1st  The Move 60s, 70s Rock
1st  Queen 70s-90s Rock
1st  Roxy Music 70s, 80s Rock
1st  Todd Rundgren 70s-00s Rock
1st  Rush 70s-00s Rock
1st  Frank Zappa 60s-90s Rock
2nd  Ambrosia 70s-90s Rock
2nd   Area 70s Rock
2nd  Argent 60s, 70s Rock
2nd  Asia 80s-00s Rock
2nd  Brian Eno 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Merrell Fankhauser 60s-00s Rock
2nd  Bryan Ferry 70s-00s Rock
2nd  FM 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Japan 70s, 80s Rock
2nd  Jon & Vangelis 70s-90s Electronica
2nd   Judas Jump 70s Rock
2nd  Phil Manzanera 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Procol Harum 60s-00s Rock
2nd   Samson 60s, 70s Rock
2nd  Spirit 60s-90s Rock
2nd  Styx 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Supertramp 70s-00s Rock
2nd  David Sylvian 80s-00s Rock
2nd  10cc 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Trapeze 70s-90s Rock
2nd  Wishbone Ash 70s-00s Rock
2nd  Roy Wood 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Albatross 70s Rock
3rd   Albion 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  Jon Anderson 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Brian Auger 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Babe Ruth 70s Rock
3rd  Ginger Baker 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Syd Barrett 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Be Bop Deluxe 70s, 80s Rock
3rd   Tim Blake 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Brand X 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Jack Bruce 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Kate Bush
3rd  John Cale 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Eugene Chadbourne 70s-00s  
3rd   Roger Chapman 70s-00s Rock
3rd   China Crisis 80s-00s Rock
3rd   Cosmos Factory 70s Rock
3rd  Holger Czukay 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Chris de Burgh 70s-00s Rock
3rd   Deus Ex Machina 90s, 00s Rock
3rd   Graeme Edge 70s Rock
3rd   Electric Frankenstein 70s Rock
3rd   Elixir 80s, 90s Rock
3rd  Rik Emmett 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  Roger Eno 80s-00s Electronica
3rd   The Falling Leaves 00s Rock
3rd   Merrell Fankhauser & H.M.S. Bounty 60s Rock
3rd  Godley & Creme 70s, 80s Rock
3rd  The Groundhogs 60s-90s Rock
3rd  Guru Guru 70s-00s Rock
3rd  Happy the Man 70s, 80s Rock
3rd   Heldon 70s-90s Electronica
3rd  Hugh Hopper 70s-00s Jazz
3rd   The Idle Race 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Illusion 70s Rock
3rd  It's a Beautiful Day 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Henry Kaiser 70s-00s Rock
3rd   Dietrich Kammer 00s Rock
3rd  King's X 80s-00s Rock
3rd   La Dusseldorf 70s, 80s Electronica
3rd  Lindisfarne 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Love Sculpture 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Magnum 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Mark-Almond 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Material 80s, 90s Rock
3rd   Merlons 90s, 00s Rock
3rd   Normann Mertig 00s Rock
3rd   Felix Mühle 00s Rock
3rd  Nico 60s-80s Rock
3rd   No-Man 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  The Penguin Cafe Orchestra 70s-90s New Age
3rd  Porcupine Tree 90s, 00s Rock
3rd  The Pretty Things 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Pulnoc 90s Rock
3rd   Purple Gang 60s Rock
3rd   Rare Bird 60s, 70s, 90s Rock
3rd   Karsten Rasim 00s Rock
3rd  The Red Krayola 60s-00s Rock
3rd   Salty Dog 90s Rock
3rd   Savage Grace 70s Rock
3rd  Savage Rose 60s-90s Rock
3rd   Maria Schumann 00s Rock
3rd   Steamhammer 60s, 70s Rock
3rd  Al Stewart 60s-00s Rock
3rd  Andy Summers 60s-00s Jazz
3rd  Synergy 70s-00s Electronica
3rd   Keith Tippett 60s-00s Jazz
3rd  Triumph 70s-90s Rock
3rd  Nik Turner 70s-00s Electronica
3rd   Unicorn 70s Rock
3rd   Village 60s, 70s Rock
3rd   Tony Visconti 70s Rock
3rd  We All Together 70s Rock
3rd  Yello 80s-00s Electronica
3rd  Yellow Magic Orchestra 70s-90s Electronica

Taken from AMG Top Artist's Prog Rock/Art Rock - you've got to laugh at some of them.Only taken the ones that are questionable or very questionable(some I wouldn't know) 1st/2nd/3rd is what rating group they think they belong in.

Nizzy wrote: The Grateful Dead are one of my favourite bands, but have never thought of them as prog. Does anyone disagree?

In my opinion, they can be considered as prog, in the way it's virtuose, complex,

long pieces, like the good allman and santana period.

Certif1ed wrote: Reed Lover wrote: I disagree - they DO push the boundaries with muscianship AND instrumentation!!! OPINION dear boy! Leaving the final statement: No - that is not opinion, it is fact!!!!! Don't confuse the two things! If you like their music, as you say you do, you'll have noticed how they use many non-conventional instruments and retro synthesisers - especially on Kid A, and the experimental approach they have to the music backs up the musicianship side.  Note their constant avoidance of the obvious in terms of chord progressions and song structures. U2 do not share this, hence my distinction between the two. Do a bit more research! Uncalled for! Not at all - if you listened carefully (ie researched) then you would understand the facts as I present them. I will resist the temptation to go through a detailled analysis - I am very good at stripping music down to its components and analysing it, but it bores most non-technical people and upsets others who seem to confuse academic, technical debate with a flame war. Worn that cap too often I own all their albums but IN MY OPINION they do none of the things you claim for them.U2 are far more adventurous and take risks too.Although overall I prefer Radiohead. I'm steering clear of opinions, and sticking to facts. The problem with opinions is, as you point out so subtley, they are like arseholes - everyone has one, and I'm damned sure I don't want to see yours! Also understand that owning and listening to albums are two different things Please note that I am merely correcting your false assumption that I somehow gave an opinion earlier. This is not the case. I am not trying to start a flame war, or present a case for why Radiohead or anyone else should be in the archives - that is a matter for the webadmins and another thread.

Sorry, I just forgot to consult my "Certifiable Big Book Of Facts"

By the way, make sure you dont get your ears full of water the next time you have colonic irrigation

Peace now,I dont know what I've done to you but well you know   ??????

OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks 

As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills 

Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right?

I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum?

If so, bad Cert

No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

I wonder who was the person that coined the term 'Progressive rock' ?? To what band was the label first applied??

My gut feeling is that Radiohead and Muse could qualify for a place in the archives, by the skin of their teeth. I believe they represent prog as it is now, what it has PROGRESSED to!! Ok, so they are not flying around the fretboards, key boards and drums at the speed of sound. They dont obviously dig far out jazz, or pay homage to classical composers. They dont play everything in 7/4 time, but did Floyd?? Did VDGG Did King Crimson?? Did Hawkwind?? No. The criteria for prog is more flexible than we sometimes allow, IMO. What makes the aforementioned old bands prog is their attititude to their music writing. The moods, atmospheres, concepts and the sticking two fingers up at the verse chorus verse chorus formula. Radiohead and Muse share many of these qualities, and should be accepted as modern prog. Rick Wakemen seems to agree. One old progger embracing the new.

Now, as for ELO NO WAY. They were rock 'n' roll when they were just ok, they 'progressed' into pop, they are barely worth a mention. Someone mentioned U2. I dont think so; rock band with a punk/new wave origin. Smashing Pumpkins, great band with a few proggy leanings but not as much as Radiohead and Muse, and not really enough to be considered.

Blacksword wrote:   Now, as for ELO NO WAY. They were rock 'n' roll when they were just ok, they 'progressed' into pop, they are barely worth a mention.

I'm reminded that ELO came about because ELO founder Roy Wood stated he wanted to mine that vein the Beatles passed through, say with Eleanor Rigby and Walrus, with strings and things - and he couldn't do it with the Move. Not really what the early prog bands were about - picking the bones clean of a beast killed by some other animal.

Certif1ed wrote: OK - no probs. Next time I have colonic irrigation I'll make sure the plumbings done properly... thanks  As I said - my intention is not to flame, but to debate; you disputed a point I made and alleged that I was merely stating opinion. I stated my point of view to the contrary and you seem to see it as a flame war. This seems to be very common around here - maybe I need to brush up on my debating skills  Maybe it's just me, but I think that debate is healthy - and when on a forum about music, what better stuff to debate than music itself? Yes, it's hard (no, not that... oh. Hang on...), but then prog is hard to listen to - or we wouldn't enjoy it, right? I'm not using capitals to shout, or funny icons to poke fun or ridicule - when I discuss music, I give it respect. Especially Mariah (we are not worthy...). I just want to get past apparently banal, flat opinions and get to the reasoning behind them. Is that so bad on an intelligent discussions forum? If so, bad Cert No hard feelings - it's very clear that the root is a simple communications issue.

One tries to do the right thing ie use emoticons to take the fire out of situations and whilst you find my latest preoccupation childish, or overdone at best,that is your perogative.

The trouble is that whenever one uses humour in "tense" situations everyone else seems to lose their sense of humour.The fireman smiley was a double-entendre for putting out the flames but also colonic irrigation (oh how we laughed!-NOT!) which was apt given my post.

I fail to understand-you might wish to educate me- how you can opine that a certain band pushes the limits of anything (even patience) and make that a statement of fact.They might be a little more thoughtful than your average Indie band but avant-garde they aint. I stated that I thought they liked to experiment but I feel this is as far as they go.I dont present this as fact but opinion.

I feel it is sometimes too easy for certain individuals to confuse heated debate with confrontation.I understand this is quite often the "nature of the beast" with forums as you cant see the person who is posting and read their body language.Whenever you have a group of people who are passionate about a subject, whether it be Films. Football or Music, discussing the merits and demerits of their favourites there is inevitable raised voices, hoots of derision and a large chunk of momentary disrespect. Then the next topic comes up it's all forgotten and lfe moves on-until the same topic is raised again.

Getting a pompous blast of air from someone (who isnt a member of the band) who feels their opinion on Radiohead or who/whatever is the word of God is fine by me.I enjoy the "banter".What I do mind is the constant insinuation that "persons who shall go unnamed" are  ridiculing,or underminding (or whatever other paranoid nonsense), the more "erudite" forum members. Get a life for Goddssake! I use smileys,large script and different colours to brighten up the page. If I use capitals I AM NOT SHOUTING. This is supposed to be fun! I have never knowingly disrespected someones opinion. If making a silly comment undermines or troubles certain individuals then they should go and lie down until the feeling subdsides.

As I tried to say I dont like to take life too seriously-I am happy for people to make jokes at my expense. But do not bloody well insult my intelligence. I refuse to censor everything I write before posting, I do not believe that a mere music forum warrants this.I think that anyone who spends any longer than a few seconds considering their posts should get out to the pub and join in some "real-life" debate.This is something I enjoy and I aint watching my back any longer.

Ye gods - it's like road kill!

I can only assume that since the Admins have left this post, they expect me to respond...

Reed Lover wrote: One tries to do the right thing ie use emoticons to take the fire out of situations and whilst you find my latest preoccupation childish, or overdone at best,that is your perogative. The trouble is that whenever one uses humour in "tense" {Who's tense? I'm not. Calm down and stop taking it all so seriously!}  situations everyone else seems to lose their sense of humour.The fireman smiley was a double-entendre for putting out the flames but also colonic irrigation (oh how we laughed!-NOT!) which was apt given my post. Which part of "my intention is not to flame" was so hard to understand? I fail to understand {That is obvious - as I said, and Robert Plant before me; "Communication Breakdown..."} -you might wish to educate me {No, I wish to correct you} - how you can opine that a certain band pushes the limits of anything (even patience) and make that a statement of fact {It's easy, if you'd care to actually have that discussion instead of this character assessment thing you'd find out how I discovered the facts that disprove your opinion. Don't take it so personally - it's only debate about music}.They might be a little more thoughtful than your average Indie band but avant-garde they aint. {*Sigh* 1) Who said they were Avant-garde? 2) What has their being avant-garde got to do with anything? 3) Actually, you are wrong again. "Kid A" is Avant Garde. 4) There are so many prog bands that aren't Avant-garde that this is irrelevant. 5) Avant-garde applies to music of the 1920s-50s (mainly). I stated that I thought they liked to experiment but I feel this is as far as they go.I dont present this as fact but opinion. {Now you're talking opinion, but you've missed a lot of points in their music if that is really what you think. Since you don't want to be educated, I will wait until you ask before I attempt to provide enlightnement.} I feel it is sometimes too easy for certain individuals to confuse heated debate with confrontation. {Yes - you are making this mistake! Instead of disputing the points I am making about the music, you're getting into some kind of philsophical debate - out of my depth really; I came here to discuss music, not philosophy} I understand this is quite often the "nature of the beast" with forums as you cant see the person who is posting and read their body language.Whenever you have a group of people who are passionate about a subject, whether it be Films. Football or Music, discussing the merits and demerits of their favourites there is inevitable raised voices, hoots of derision and a large chunk of momentary disrespect. Then the next topic comes up it's all forgotten and lfe moves on-until the same topic is raised again. {But that's exactly the point you're missing - let's get away from opinion, and start talking about what's really in the music!} Getting a pompous blast of air from someone {Thank you very much} (who isnt a member of the band {So what? Does that mean we shouldn't be discussing bands if we're not actually members of those bands? Excuse me for thinking that's extremely silly!) who feels their opinion on Radiohead or who/whatever is the word of God {Did I say that?} is fine by me.I enjoy the "banter".What I do mind is the constant insinuation that "persons who shall go unnamed" are  ridiculing,or underminding (or whatever other paranoid nonsense), the more "erudite" forum members. {Someone here is definitely paranoid, in my very limited opinion} Get a life for Goddssake! {I have a very good life, thank you. Take a chill pill!} I use smileys,large script and different colours to brighten up the page. If I use capitals I AM NOT SHOUTING. {YES YOU ARE!!! THIS IS CALLED CONVENTION ON THE INTERNET. YOU MAY NOT MEAN TO SHOUT, BUT TO EVERYONE ELSE, YOU ARE SHOUTING!!!} This is supposed to be fun! {Too right!} I have never knowingly disrespected someones opinion. If making a silly comment undermines or troubles certain individuals then they should go and lie down until the feeling subdsides. {Or maybe you should read what you are about to post before clicking submit to see if it could be misunderstood in any way by people not familiar with your thought patterns} As I tried to say I dont like to take life too seriously-I am happy for people to make jokes at my expense. But do not bloody well insult my intelligence {Absolutely not - I would not dream of it}. I refuse to censor everything I write before posting {Maybe not, but at least THINK}, I do not believe that a mere music forum warrants this.I think that anyone who spends any longer than a few seconds considering their posts should get out to the pub and join in some "real-life" debate.This is something I enjoy and I aint watching my back any longer. {It's not about watching your back, it's about thinking about other people. You will probably read this as some kind of beration, a telling-off if you like, and you will probably remonstrate my apparently authoritative style with more comments along the lines of "get off my case". However, as long as you direct ill-considered comments like these at me, I will react much the same. But that's boring. Let's talk about the music. Please?

Brilliantly put.

Sorry

M&M's with almonds.. Oh yeah!

Hey, what about Yanni?

I think we should reshape a few things on the site, like the genres list. It should be modified to have the following genres:

Symphonic Prog: band functions as an orchestra of sorts, or sounds something close to Genesis' sound

Neo-Prog: glazed-over, simpler, newer, more mainstream prog, sometimes nieve in the methods it uses

Prog Metal: uses crunch, high gain, and other metal techniques to give it a metal sound but is prog in a mainstream disguise, like Dream Theater

Art Rock: lighter prog, could also be "hard prog" like Rush (not quite metal, not really symphonic); sort of a middle ground

Krautrock: same definition as currently used

Zheul: same definition as being used now

Canterbury: I've never heard anything from here, wouldn't know

RIO: same

Jazz-Fusion: same

Space Prog: minimalistic at times, very psychadelic prog

Alternative Prog: semi-prog, the least prog-related than anything else on the site; this is where any controversial new bands would be placed, like Radiohead; this would be mainly to pull in newcomers. By including bands that are somewhat related to prog, people will find this site and say "hey, my favorite band's on here!" and they'll look around more and discover other prog bands

Proto-prog: pre-prog bands, like the Beatles and to a certain extent the Moody Blues, maybe The Who

Folk prog: more folksy, hard rock bands like Jethro Tull or Led Zeppelin

Italian Symphonic Prog: same

Experimental: like Zappa and Captain Beefheart

----

Some other reforms should be made. As many bands as possible should be placed on the site, and the controversial or semi-prog bands will be categorized as "alternative prog" to lure in newcomers. (NOTE TO PURISTS: this site is not sacred. Does it really matter what is on the site as long as YOU think it isn't prog? Honestly. If you don't think it's prog, we'll have that "alternative" label, and you'll know what to avoid.)

Also, the genres being used are too broad. Pink Floyd is labelled "space prog" instantly, although only their earlier material is such. They later became art/symphonic with Waters, still with spacey influences. The Wall is Rock Opera, nothing near space prog. After that it becomes poppish stuff with Gilmour at the helm. I think genres should not be applied to the band as a whole, but to their individual albums. Like when you click Pink Floyd's "Sacerful of Secrets" it would say it was "space rock". However, when you click "Dark Side" it would be symphonic rock or art rock. Or both! Maybe we could have multiple genres for each! And for concept albums, they should be labelled such. Rock Operas would be similarly labelled.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to bash, trash, and thrash as you please. But don't be overly purist. That means you oliverstoned!

What, with the arguments we have over what is and what isn't "prog"?

Think I'd better stock up on crisps, popcorn - oh, and a large crate of beer for the clown...

It is hard to put in same basket ELO and F.Zappa. But it's also hard put in same basket Zappa's albums - Hot Rats (jazz-rock), Sheik Yerbouti (alt. rock) and Yelow Shark (avant-g. classic music). All this names of styles are only helping us to talking about music, not listening. I think the name style:Progressive Rock isn't good idea - I prefer Art Rock, Symphonic Rock, Alternative etc. Elvis was also Progressive Rock compare with Sinatra.

By the way. For me Frank Zappa is great composer (like J.S.Bach). Rest are good or bad rock bands. And I like ELO too.

totalski wrote: It is hard to put in same basket ELO and F.Zappa. But it's also hard put in same basket Zappa's albums And I like ELO too.

Id like to put all Zappa and Elo in the waste basket!

Ere we go, ere we go, ere we go!

It's my contention that Reed Lover is actually Henry Rollins who is posting here to amuse himself during slow moments between death poems...

danbo wrote: M&M's with almonds.. Oh yeah! Hey, what about Yanni?

Danbo I don't know you spoke Urdu - and clearly a knowledge of words about naughty parts of the body................

And while talk organs and other keyboards, can you tell Yanni from a host of other ambient/New Age musicians signed to Private Music about 15 or so years ago?

It's a JOKE, Dick... Yanni is meagor...bleck

Sorry about the name thingee, I was just spanking Peter! 

Captain beefheart should be here.

radiohead and Smashing pumpkins shouldn't.