BIG FIVE

I didn't finish reading the whole thread, but I read quiet a bit about replacing one of the so called big 5 with Jethro Tull. I would rather make it a big 6, for Jethro Tull is indeed too important (at least in my mind) to be left out, but so are the other five. To me it makes sense, since they are the most succesful of the original prog bands, and they are all british, which is the country were the genre was originated (or at least became really succesful). And I would add at least the next 4, also british, with Camel, VdGG, Gentle Giant, and Renaissance (though perhaps many would disagree at least with the last one).

And if we would add some non british to the formula of the next ones, I guess there would have to come at least Rush and Kansas (and perhaps some of the italian ones).

silverpot wrote: SteveG wrote: lazland wrote: SteveG wrote: I'm surprised to see that people (aside from JCDenton) make so little of King Crimson. I cannot imagine modern Prog let alone ELP, Yes and '70s era Floyd sounding the same without them. I would never make so little of Crimson. I love them. But I will take issue a little big with your analysis. Yes were contemporaries of Crimson. There the comparison rather ended. Don't forget the celebrated story about Briford being invited to join KC by Fripp....."I believe you are ready to join King Crimson now"....Fripp was clearly implying that Crimson were a more advanced, mature, clever outfit than Yes. Aside from the presence of Greg Lake, I see no other connection or influence between Crimson and ELP, sorry. As for Floyd, you are a little nearer the mark, if, of course, you presuppose that much of Meddle and DSOTM were mere copies of parts of In The Court and In The Wake. I personally don't, but the influence was clearly present. Perhaps I should have said that I could not imagine them sounding exactly the same without KC. I feel that Lake was extremely influenced by KC when he composed Lucky Man, the song that brought them radio exposure to the world, and that KC's classical suite like song structures influenced Yes to a degree. The rest was all down to their own genius. Cheers Laz. According to legend, Lake composed Lucky Man in his early teens. He's also responsible for the riff of Schizoid Man. Hard to say who influenced whom.

verslibre wrote: Svetonio wrote: verslibre wrote: If I were to replace a band, it would likely be Floyd – replaced by Tull. ELP must remain. They're too unique. Same with Crimson. Genesis I've never thought of a "symph" band. ELP is classical rock, and the Yes brand of symph is quite different. Floyd became very popular but they're pretty much a glorified psych band, IMO. Imo, just because Pink Floyd were psychedelic / space rock band, they must be in the Big FIve. I think Hawkwind would be a better representative of psych/space rock, IMHO. We should just have a Big 10.

Edited by Svetonio - June 26 2014 at 06:24

Big 4 of classic and modern:

King Crimson
Genesis
Yes
Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Marillion
IQ
Porcupine Tree
Transatlantic

It seems that there are more bands -  formed in post-modern era  - who are waiting in line to enter the Big 5, than the bands from the golden decade. It is understandable,  there are more progressive rock bands formed in last 20-25 yrs than it  was in the late sixties & seventies.

Edited by Svetonio - June 26 2014 at 09:06

Five or six, seven or eight?

Anyways, the ring and the crown belongs to the Gentle Giant!

Yeah, Mike Oldfield is often forgotten in this kind of discussions, and as far as I understand he was really huge back in the time, and his music is really wonderful. Perhaps one could argue that he wasn't really prog enough, but as with Pink Floyd, when I listen to him I like him because of the same reasons I like prog music itself. Besides, it doesn't get any proggier than 4 albums in a row with only epic songs (and one of those albums being a double album).

I'd say:

Jethro Tull
Camel
Gentle Giant
Caravan
Van der graaf

Dellinger wrote: Yeah, Mike Oldfield is often forgotten in this kind of discussions, and as far as I understand he was really huge back in the time, and his music is really wonderful. Perhaps one could argue that he wasn't really prog enough, but as with Pink Floyd, when I listen to him I like him because of the same reasons I like prog music itself. Besides, it doesn't get any proggier than 4 albums in a row with only epic songs (and one of those albums being a double album).

Mike's music was way more "prog" than Floyd's! I don't think there was anything like Tubular Bells and Hergest Ridge at the time. I think Mannheim Steamroller (there's a New Age connection for you!) definitely took some cues from Mike.

verslibre wrote: Dellinger wrote: Yeah, Mike Oldfield is often forgotten in this kind of discussions, and as far as I understand he was really huge back in the time, and his music is really wonderful. Perhaps one could argue that he wasn't really prog enough, but as with Pink Floyd, when I listen to him I like him because of the same reasons I like prog music itself. Besides, it doesn't get any proggier than 4 albums in a row with only epic songs (and one of those albums being a double album). Mike's music was way more "prog" than Floyd's! I don't think there was anything like Tubular Bells and Hergest Ridge at the time. I think Mannheim Steamroller (there's a New Age connection for you!) definitely took some cues from Mike.

Well, I wasn't born yet by the time of Tubular Bells, nor am I sure to know enough of music at the time, but it would seem to me that when it was released, Tubular Bells was like nothing people had heard before. At least not on a massive level. I could imagine it being something completley new and fresh. Perhaps even more so than The Moody Blues and King Crimson at their time.