LUNCH

I don't know that Lunch should be classified as a progressive album or that Audience is a "progressive" group. Classifications of that sort restrictively set parameters that really shouldn't be considered legitimate and tend to invite undue and unfair criticism. This is especially so if a group is trying to develop an individual vision and style. Audience had a sound that was, compared to any other group I heard from that time period, on the whole unique. To classify them as prog suggests they should be compared to other early 70s acts like ELP, YES, Genesis, King Crimson, PFM... and although some titles might have stylistic similarities others certainly won't. Audience was a group that, with the advent of Lunch especially, defied categorizing of any sort. In that respect I suppose Audience would be progressive as their musical style pushed past parameters and expectations to create a sound that is both unusual and very tasty.

Progressive albums were at that time mostly concept albums and Lunch certainly doesn't fall into that category. It was/is essentially a collection of singles many of which stylistically bear some similarities but that hardly makes for a "concept album".

I can fully understand how someone who fell in love with House on the Hill might consider Lunch to be a disappointment as the overall style is entirely different. The waiter brings you a tunamelt when you were expecting pastrami on rye and you probably don't care if it's the best tunamelt in town it's still not your beloved pastrami on rye. Fortunately I appreciate variety and that's probably why I always enjoy Lunch.