Actually, I think Sabotage is more progressive than any of these, although its more metal than HP, tbh...but I've gone for In Rock in this poll...which of course, contains a song especially dedicated to Micky...

 

...the Flight of the Raff...

 

so which one is the proggiest??? Hummm! PHYSICAL GRAFFITY is the closest i think thanks to songs like Kashmir ot In My Time Of Dying and others!!

And Sabotage also was the starter of ruining Ozzy's voice

 

In live concerts i hear how Ozzy have very difficult task to reach the high notes of songs like Megalomania, Killing Yourself to Live, etc and maybe that's the reason of why never play The Writ live.

 

Found under a ROCK -- classic hard rock, if you must have further classification.

 

 

Those are hard rock albums to me, plain and simple. (Which was the music that would lead to metal, I guess, which  -- at least to me -- is not progressive rock either.)

 

This site -- and this "category" -- revises music history, in order to justify adding non-prog artists (or so I firmly believe).

 

But then, what the heck is prog, anyway? That's the eternal, unresolvable question here. Clearly, it's vastly different things to different people.

 

 

As this poll stands, I can't vote, because I don't accept (let alone see the need for) its terms. If such an option existed, my vote would be "None of the above are prog albums -- these should stay in the Rock or Hard Rock category, where they have been for 30+ years."

 

Why this need to re-write accepted rock history? I don't get it -- does anyone really need to be led to classic rock artists as well known as these, through a (supposed) progressive rock site? Are the Zeppelin and Sabbath fans natural fits for Genesis and Gentle Giant? If either is the case, then we might as well just list all rock (especially 70s stuff, apparently) and be done with it -- take the guesswork and infighting around revisionist inclusions out of the equation once and for all!  

 

 

Ready for my "Progcetera" name yet, Max & Ron? It's yours if you want it.

 

According to PA, some (but more and ever more) rock is prog, some jazz is prog, some folk rock is prog, some metal is prog -- so logically, some country, punk, new wave, new age, reggae, hip hop, etc, etc, must be "prog" too!

 

 

And thus "prog" must simply mean "good" or "better than average" -- which is precisely the purely subjective, unwritten, (non) working "definition" we have arrived at here. (Or so I keep saying, curmudgeonly, independent-thinking party-pooper that I am.)

 

What a hazy, flimsy, near-meaningless way to "categorize" music this "progressive" notion is! It should be used only in the privacy of your own home, if you ask me!

Well text is always open to interpretation, of course.

 

 

Prog is a type of rock -- rock (as we have listed in this poll) is not a type of prog. Prog is the subgenre, the lesser-known, younger cousin (or offspring) of ROCK. Those listed artists in this poll are classic rock artists, not some b*stard, lesser division of "prog."  Rock includes our territory, not the other way around. To extend the geographic analogy, prog is a minor province, vassal state or fiefdom of the far vaster and older empire of Rock. Rock annexes and incorporates us -- we don't annexe rock. That is sheer over-reaching pride, wishful thinking, revisionism, and pure blindness to the reality. (On a a similar note, where I come from, in our provincial pride we often joke that "1949 is when Canada joined Newfoundland" -- but we know it is a joke.)

 

Prog can be filed under rock -- as it is, and always has been, in music stores.

 

 

 

I can't relate -- all of this revision, all of these categories are useless to me. I file Black Sabbath under 'B" with the Beatles, Billy Bragg, Bananarama and Bauhaus. I know what they all sound like, I know that they're all different, but I know they are all found in Rock/Pop in a record store.

 

^ I just looked under "B" in the Archives, to see if I could put a well-known "classic" prog band in my "B list" above (none were obvious enough -- I should have gone with G), and I was surprised to see just how many extremely diverse artists, and how many supposed categories of prog and "relations" were listed there! Yes, it simply looked like browsing under B in the Rock/Pop section of a large record store. I firmly believe the  "prog" thread which supposedly binds all of this diverse music together is more thin, stretched and tenuous than ever. It looks darned close to "AllMusic" to me!

 

 Anyway, Atavachron & Cacho my friends, I'm not fighting -- please don't take offense! It's just music and the classification of music we are debating, after all! I find the subject interesting from time to time, I like hanging around this forum, I like and respect most of the people, but I think too many prog fans needlessly over-analyze and over-complicate the subject.

 

 It's just not how I think of or find music.

 

 

 Maybe the difference in our perspectives, Atavachron, is due to the fact that I'm  primarily a rock (and music in general) fan, rather than being primarily a prog fan.

 

I'm currently listening to my entire collection of music on random play on my Ipod. There's over thirty days (!) of music in there, and I'd only consider about 10% of it to be "prog." I think many here listen to far more prog than I do, proportionately speaking. When someone asks me what kind of music I listen to,  I reply 'LOADS of stuff." I might go on to say "mostly rock," but it never occurs to me to say "prog." (Most folks don't know the term, anyway.)

 

 

Thanks for reading. Take care & goodnight!

 

 

 

 

 No sweat, Cacho -- that was my perspective on the music (or the categorization of it, anyway).

 

As for the actual quality of the music, you have some great artists & albums listed there. I still love the Zep and early Deep Purple, but I actually stopped listening to Sabbath and Rainbow as a young teen, when I got into prog rock. Thus for me at least, and for about 35 years, none of those bands have never been any sort of "prog." To me, they were and are the antithesis of prog, but as I've suggested, different people have differing perspectives as to just what sort or sorts of music "prog" implies and includes. We don't need to agree, especially if we both enjoy the music in any case, and keep it civil, as you indicate.

 

As I said, I see music categorization as more of a subjective, personal thing (the "I know what I like" syndrome), so for me, the problem is when we try to pin it all down, put it into various mutually-exclusive boxes, and label it for everyone. I firmly believe that each of us brings his or her unique personality, history and perspective to the interpretation of art, and that therefore, in a very fundamental way, we are ALL "right."

 

I like to keep it simple -- I don't need a new category which includes the adjective "prog" for those old hard rock artists. I already know what they all sound like (though I guess some younger folks won't). Still, I really don't like to see long-established rock history being re-written and re-labelled here. I guess it just serves to prove the old maxim that you'll never please all of the people all of the time.

 

 

That's the worst selection of prog I have ever seen ...

 

That's not to say that there isn't some great stuff in there, because there is.

 

Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is their most progressive and hardcore album and pretty much an assault on the beginning of the punk movement that was taking place that had very little depth to it ... this album was probably the most progressive that BS ever got. I always thought that Ozzie wanted to "show'em" who could crank and who couldn't ... and actually play music ... not just hack egos.

 

Deep Purple ... was the one of the two concerts I have ever walked out of in my life. One song does not a band make! And the decibel'age was uncalled for and un-necessary.

 

Led Z ... no criticisms. It's not prog in the sense that we like to define things here, but it was quite honestly a very good "personal expression" ... and that expression helped define a very nice catalogue of music that even today is very special to many of us. It is not progressive and neither was it being competitive with anyone else. It was what it was and had its own beauty and affection.

 

Thx

Anyway, as for the poll, I simply voted for my favourite from the list because I am not any the wiser which of them can be considered heavy prog  - it happens to be Sabbath Bloody Sabbath.  By the way, Pablo, Dio rocks and Rising is a wonderful album, but you're talking to a fanboy!    And I agree about BOC - Secret Treaties shoulda been there.

 

Again ... these are all pop albums ... nothing progressive in almost all of these.