Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Yes, that's one way of putting it. Although I would prefer the words which I carefully chose: "momentum and public profile".   There we have a strong difference Mike, IMO Popularity has absolutely no relation from my perspective with a classic era, which I believe is linked to quality.   Still, the peak is 4 years after it's creation and then everything is downhill?   Doesn't sound very fair for the thousand of new bands in different genres appeared after 1976. You have to find a  way to get this link between "classic" and "top quality" out of your head. There is no such link ... Why Mike, because you say so? IMO Classical or Classic is the central era of a musical genre, linked directly with the quality, if we believed in popularity, we wouldn't be listening Prog, but any other popular genre.   This is difficult to describe. In a way those albums *are* superior - but not compared to all that came afterwards, but compared to the other albums of the time.   Well, I believe Prog albums of the 80's, 90's and 00's are superior to the music of it's time...Just compare it with Boys bands, Rap and Hip Hop, the difference of quality is more obvious today than in the 70's when Rock was also an important genre.    And this superiority also only applies to certain criteria - somehow those albums managed to be remembered by *many* people even today, about 35 years after they were released. Think of the label "Classic Rock" ... it's exactly the same, only non prog.   But Mike, bands and artists  like: 1.      Chuck Berry (50's) 2.      Beatles (60's) 3.      Rolling Stones (60's - 00's) 4.      Eagles (70's) 5.      Boston (70's and 80's) 6.      U2 (80’s and 90’s) And a lot of the 80's bands are also described as Classic Rock...In General Rock seems to be a wider period of time that keeps growing as time goes on...But in the case of Prog we want to limit it to 5 years?   If you want to call it Classic then I won't stop you. But somehow I think that your list of classic prog albums would simply include all important prog albums ... where's the point in calling it "classic"? I agree that the label "modern prog" is somewhat strange since it lacks a point of reference and it would be better to call it "90s prog". We could also call "classic prog" "70s prog" instead, but that decade happens to be the one which saw the peak of the original prog movement ... so IMHO it's really appropriate to call it "classic".   Well, if you follow the Rock criteria, simply with the pass of time a band becomes classic, and for that reason after 15 years Hybris has gained the right to be called Classic. Again, the 70's saw the peak the pioneer Symphonic bands, not the peak of Prog.   Of course there is. There are several ones, but the first one is the most important one, and thus deserves the title of "classic". This is my opinion, and you are free to ignore it.   That's my point, there are several Prog Classic eras, but I don't believe the 70's were particularly important, except for Symphonic. And I don't ignore your opinion, I listen it, appreciate it and agree or disagree...In this case I disagree.   "classic" bands/albums are simply the first step of the cycle ... the one which has no predecessors, the one which "invented" the genre.   In Classical  Music, Classic era comes after Medieval - Renaissance  and Baroque, so I don't get where you get the idea that the first era has to be the Classic or most important.   The problem is that when you call Images and Words "Classic Prog", people will always object and say that bands like Genesis came first. Again, we simply don't have the same definition of the word "classic". Looking at the typical definitions you may be right ... but there are different connotations, some of which support my usage of the word. In a nutshell, "classic" can both mean "the best" and "typical, traditional". Genesis are pioneers of Symphonic, nothing else, probably all the Gabriel era and the first two Collins era albums gained the status of SYMPHONIC Classic albums, but I also believe Anglagard has reached that status. Any person that denies that Images and Words is a Classic Prog Metal album, simply doesn't know. what he's talking about I would never try to do so. All that I say is simply my opinion, and you're free to adopt it or reject it. I don't reject it, simply disagree, but you are here debating without kicking the board or saying your words have been changed when as a fact your posts were copied word by word...I respect that. Like I said above: I agree that the term "modern" is misleading , since prog has been around for so long and there are several phases/movements which could be called "modern" in comparison to the original movements. First point of agreement, that's what I've been saying since this started, but some people reply that knowing when something started is not important.....If you don't know at least when a period starts and ends with reasonable flexibility (lets say a year or two), then How can you say if a band belongs there? We fully agree, the term Modern is completely misleading and what is worst, ever changing. That's all true for "modern", but "classic" is clearly defined. If you just say "classic prog" then it's clear that you're referring to the 70s, and most people would even intuitively narrow it down to British Symphonic. But why must we accept that partial Symphonic description has to be valid for all Prog? I believe Marillion is a Classic band, they passed the test of time, they were more popular (even when I don't like this as a parameter) than most 70's bands. I also believe that by now Anglagard, Par Lindh Project, Dream Theater, Pendragon, etc, have gained the right to be called Classic Neo Prog or Prog Metal bands. You brought up "modern" all by yourself, and now you're trying to use its ambiguity to get back at me? It won't work ... this discussion started with the term "classic". I didn't brought it Mike, it was used by many participants in this thread before and to reply me, as a fact it was used in page 1 of this thread when I didn’t even joined. Who knows? Maybe in 100 years Prog will still be around ... then this whole period (35 years) might be considered a classic phase in a larger scope. Today, from all the information which is available to me, I identify the early 1970s as the classic phase of the prog movement. Again...FOR YOU, but historically you can't apply a Symphonic era to Neo Prog, Canterbuty, Avant, Rio, Zeuhl, etc.     Iván

 

Russelk wrote:

I don't intend to, kenmartree - I've run out of colours! I'm a scholar, not a lawyer, so I'm interested in discovery as opposed to winning an argument. Poor Mike is having his words reworked and fed back to him now

 

 

I never re-work words, as a fact I quote all the post word by word, read what you write and what it implies, of course I analyze what is being said, but that’s a point of the thread and the reason to create a DISCUSSION FORUM.

 

I never tried to win an argument, as a fact laws is only my work, my real passion is in Literature and Theology which I also studies. My only concern is the accuracy of the site I’ve been working for years and I believe neither Classic Prog Era neither Modern Prog (Something with which Mike agrees with me) are accurate terms, much less in a  genre based site.

 

BTW: I don’t see Mike being pissed to reply, he doesn’t use to evade questions and discussions, he always replies them.

Russelk wrote:

I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post.

 

This doesn’t make it right, only means that a majority of the persons interested in this issue and who are posting

 

Honestly I don’t care how many people in this thread disagree with my opinion, I don’t believe in this division and will never do it, as many other members who simply don’t join this thread because they don’t care at all.

I believe you're countring yourself, Mike and Kestrel who posted repeatedly as many members

 

Russelk wrote:

Seems self-evident to me that Neo is fabulous, though not the most experimental genre; that there was a classic prog period, now long gone, that as Mike so succinctly said 'neo' is called 'neo' because it follows a classic period,

 

Neo only means NEW, doesn’t imply it comes after a Classic era, as a fact historically they choose the term Neo to divorce from older Prog that was being attacked from the alternative side by Punk and from the mainstream side of musical spectrum by Disco Music.

 

 

Russelk wrote:

that there's been a modern retro-prog revival begun in the 1990s, and that there are a myriad of bands - not all of them on this site - making experimental and unconventional modern music. Two quite different kinds of prog music, to my mind.

 

Not to my mind, sub-genres evolve, some more radically than others, but the Neo of the 80’s is not the Neo of the 21^st Century, neither Symphonic.

 

Not all experimental and unconventional music is Prog

Russelk wrote:

I guess we'll let the jury decide

 

There’s no jury here, neither a  wrong or right person, just differnet opinions to be discussed.

 

Amd now the third post:

 

Dorsalia wrote:

First, I find it kind of hard to believe that Arena is a "side project" for Nolan considering that he doesn't compose or write in Pendragon, whereas he writes all of the music for Arena along with Pointer and Mitchell and all of the lyrics as well.

 

Pendragon is his home band, where he started, grew, developed and still is member, you got to guess which one is the side project.

Dorsalia wrote:

As for the super group issue: -Mick Pointer: Was on one Marillion album, and god knows he's not the strongest drummer in the world. -Clive Nolan: As I already said, Nolan does not write in Pendragon, and even though he has participated in many other projects(the more relevant ones I know of: Caamora, or the albums with Oliver Wakeman for example are post arena), Strangers on a Train is definetely not one that I'd brag about. While I must admit I am not familiar with Shadowland's music, theyr'e not considered a great band at least by anyone I know. -Kino was formed long after John Mitchell joined Arena.

 

You are mentioning three bands two of them Pendragon and Marillion are the most representative bands of a sub-genre, Strangers on a Train is a very solid band pre Arena.

 

You are forgeting John Howit (IQ)

 

Maybe you don’t consider Sadowland a great band, but it was a well known band pre-arena. Isn’t that enough to consider it a super-group?

 

As a fact the bio in our site considers them a super-group, as well as most Prog sites.

 

Dorsalia wrote:

-Which Quasar member was ever in Arena? Please enlighten me if there's something I don't know.

 

Tracy Hitchings, guest in Arena was a member of Quasar, but it was post Arena, there you got a point.


Dorsalia wrote:

ELP and Transatlantic for example, are both bands formed solely by recognized (in terms of composition and/ or virtuosity) members of other bands that are also recognized in their own right. ALL members of the aforementioned bands and the bands from which they came/come from qualify to make them what is considered a "super-group". Not one single Arena formation does.

 

Not necessarily, you got the Super-group formed by Steve Hackett in Tokyo Tapes, not every member came from a great band, Julian Colbeck for example is practically unknown

 

Then you got GTR, a band in which besides Hackett and Howe and Jonathan Mower, Phil Spalding and Max Bacon came from practically unknown bands…but it’s still a super-group.

 

You also got the first Par Lindh Project album which was considered a Swedish Super-group, because Anglagard members (before Anglagard was famous), Roine Stolt (Before TFK was famous), Bjorn Johansson and Par Lindh Project members were part of it.

Dorsalia wrote:

Even if we don't consider the facts about Nolan and Pointer to be relevant, they are still only two members of Arena's first formation. And just naming people who have been in Arena as well as other bands is misleading because there is not a single Arena formation formed solely by such members. Rob Sowden for example is not nor has ever been on any other important band.

 

A super-group doesn’t require all of their members to have been previously part of a great band.



Dorsalia wrote:

Oh and by the way, I never said I knew anything about prog. I'm just stating what I feel, I never said the bands considered neo-prog were bad, but I do think that many people dismiss Arena without even listening to them properly because they're tagged under this genre.

 

This s the thread in which everuybody denies what they said:

 

1. The starter of this thread denied the name of it, I don’t know if any administrator would even bother to change the name of a thread.
2. Russelk denied what he said despite it was quoted word by word
3. Now you say you never spoke in derogatory terms about Neo Prog, but let me refresh your memory:

 

You wrote:

Arena were definitely doing great stuff until their latest album. I don't know how people can dismiss them as "neo-prog"

 

Don’t you believe this is offensive to a genre?

 

Dorsalia wrote:

Of course, I've always hated genres on principle, even when they can be useful.     Didn't Kierkegaard say something like: "Categorize me, and you deny me." Oh well, that's a whole other kettle of fish I suppose.

 

I don’t believe Kierkegaard would had joined a sub-genre based site.

 

Iván

 

BTW: This is exhausting, but if I don’t quote all the posts, may be accused of changing what others said.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 22:01

No Dorsalia, Super-Group is only a term used to describe bands bands formed by members of different well known bands, there are some good (UK or ELP) and others that I consider bad like ASIA or GTR. It has no relation with the style or anything, it's almost a  case of trivia, something harmless but used in Prog mainly.

 

The case you mention of a member playing in a death metal band but also in a different genre band is different; the musician doesn't carry his sound to the other band unless he convinces the rest to play in a different genre.

 

Terry Bozzio played in Missing Persons, but this band isn't even Prog (Even bands change, Genesis went from Pop to Prog and back to POP), Peter Gabriel is a different entity than Genesis, for that reason Genesis is in Symphonic and peter Gabriel in Crossover I believe.

 

In the case of Arena I strongly believe they play Neo Prog, a different one than Marillion on these days because genres also change. Symphonic has a lot of differences to what it meant in the 70's, also Neo Prog.

 

If you don't like Arena being called Neo Prog because many people don't like Neo Prog, then you are guiding yourself for a prejudice, let people believe whatever they want and like whatever genre they like, I honestly can't stand most Avant, but this doesn't mean it's a bad genre or I will protest because a band is added to that genre, it's simply my opinion and taste.

 

This doesn't mean either I will dislike every Avant band, a few days ago I added an excellent band called Factor Burzaco to Avant, despite I don't like most of the genre I like this band, but they belong in Avant, and I can't change that.

 

But Arena is a Neo band, every single site in the web and every piece of lProg literature places them in Noe Prog, that's undeniable, check GEPR, Proggnosis, Manticornio, etc, all point towards Neo Prog but still most of this sites recommend one or more Arena albums.

 

Don't shut up, express your opinions, I believe it's silly to join a debate Forum if you are not going to debate and blindly accept what others say, if that's your position, better join a fan club.

 

If I want to read that everything Genesis did is wonderful I would go to the Genesis Forum, but that's the exact reason I left the it, because I don't like everything Genesis did and it was almost a crime in that site to say Invisible Touch or We Can't Dance are anything but perfect.

 

The Neo Prog team keep working in the genre, cleaning bands, adding some, moving others,, despite what people say, we don't give a damn about silly prejudices, even when we know this won't change.

 

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 21:57

Hey, I was not arguing with you, only giving you a recommendation.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Maybe you don’t consider Sadowland a great band,

Not many people would. Ring of Roses is decent if you like neo.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dorsalia wrote: Of course, I've always hated genres on principle, even when they can be useful.     Didn't Kierkegaard say something like: "Categorize me, and you deny me." Oh well, that's a whole other kettle of fish I suppose.   I don’t believe Kierkegaard would had joined a sub-genre based site.   Iván

BWAHAHAHAHA!

So you can be funny.

Damn! I love this site.... Where else would I find such discussions? Now that TV doesn't have any intelligent discussion-panel program, this is.. excellent...

^ Good points, Teo. Part of the confusion comes because people are talking about different things. Some are referring to 'classic prog' as a style. others as a time period, and still others as a genre.

Roine Stolt was indeed around in the 70s. Yes, he continues to write and play in the style he loves. No fault, no shame, no criticism in my opinion. But when he started, prog rock was relatively new, and it was a period when record companies were less restrictive, so artists could break boundaries and an accepting public embraced them. I think these are some of the factors that lead many people to refer to a 'classic prog' period. However, many aspects of the music scene changed in the mid to late 70s. Now Stolt's music, though even more meritorious than it was in the 1970s ('Stardust We Are' is IMO one of the best prog songs ever written), is, because of when it was released, retro-prog. It hearkens back to an earlier period, the period when Stolt was first active. (Exactly when that period was does not matter: Neo-Marxism, for example, hearkens back to the classic Marxist era, but no two scholars agree exactly when that period was, yet they still see value in the terms.)

Not every album from the classic prog era was outstanding in quality. But something new was happening - or, and this is closer to the truth, I think, the public were picking up on something that had been happening for a few years. So an album or band can't be excluded just because its quality was poor.

Edited by russellk - July 10 2008 at 01:57

Ivan's raised some interesting points.

"Popularity has absolutely no relation from my perspective with a classic era, which I believe is linked to quality."

I don't agree with this, nor do I agree with Mike at this point. As I said in answer to Teo, items from a particular period can't be excluded because they are poor. If I discover Lapita period pottery, I look for the confirming marks. Does it have a serrated pattern? Is it glazed in the Lapita fashion? It might be a poor example, but if it meets the criteria, then it belongs to the period. In the same way, I think 'Classic Prog' includes all prog from the period.

Public acceptance is very important in the definition of 'classic' periods. One way of defining the classic prog period is when prog was at the forefront of the public's attention. I'd be interested in a poll of proggers to see if they thought there was a single 'classic' period. Given I design polls professionally, I ought to give it some thought!

Ivan, I'm puzzled by this:

"Russelk wrote:
I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post."

Ivan responded:

"This doesn’t make it right, only means that a majority of the persons interested in this issue and who are posting

Honestly I don’t care how many people in this thread disagree with my opinion, I don’t believe in this division and will never do it, as many other members who simply don’t join this thread because they don’t care at all.

Bu seems you are ignoring the opoinions of:
Rubidium
King Crimson 776
Momkeyphone Alex
Anglagardist
Garion 81
Stonebeard
Startibastfast
Henry Plainview
The T
Myself
All of whoi in lesser or higher degree disagree with the point of this thread.

I believe you're countring yourself, Mike and Kestrel who posted repeatedly as many members"

A couple of things here. I didn't say that most people agree with me. What I said was I thought virtually everyone UNDERSTOOD me. Read it again: "I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post."

So I'm at a loss to understand what you are arguing. You provide a list of people whom you say I'm ignoring, but I repeat, I didn't say people agreed with me. I said I was in agreement with the original post, and people understand that. I'm not ignoring them. Their views are constructive and valid.

And I do not post here under different names. Neither does Mike, as far as I know. Given you say "I don’t care how many people in this thread disagree with my opinion" I do not understand why you think numbers are important. I repeat, I did NOT make any mention of people agreeing with me. My words clearly state I thought people understood me. "I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do." They understand that I am in broad agreement with the original post. You say you quote me exactly, but you make arguments based on things I didn't say. Why do you do this? Could you please confine yourself to what I DO say?


Edited by russellk - July 10 2008 at 03:04

russellk wrote: I don't agree with this. As I said in answer to Teo, items from a particular period can't be excluded because they are poor. If I discover Lapita period pottery, I look for the confirming marks. Does it have a serrated pattern? Is it glazed in the Lapita fashion? It might be a poor example, but if it meets the criteria, then it belongs to the period. In the same way, I think 'Classic Prog' includes all prog from the period. Public acceptance is very important in the definition of 'classic' periods. One way of defining the classic prog period is when prog was at the forefront of the public's attention. I'd be interested in a poll of proggers to see if they thought there was a single 'classic' period. Given I design polls professionally, I ought to give it some thought!   Symphonic is the most popular of the genres in this forum, we all know it and people are fans of 70's bands in bigger number than other decades, so most surely people will vote for it, but as I said before, I don't believe in polls. Ivan, I'm puzzled by this: A couple of things here. I didn't say that most people agree with me. What I said was I thought virtually everyone UNDERSTOOD me. Read it again: "I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post."   And I replied:  "All of who in lesser or higher degree disagree with the point of this thread."    Obviously I'm talking about the original posts NOT ABOUT YOU, and all the persons I mentioned have disagrements in some degree with the original post, I never mentioned you or made reference to you, my post is clear I refer to the point of his thread, ergo to the original post..   As a fact it was so clear that The T ubnderstood it and expresed his disagreement with the original post.. So I'm at a loss to understand what you are arguing. You provide a list of people whom you say I'm ignoring, but I repeat, I didn't say people agreed with me. I said I was in agreement with the original post, and people understand that. I'm not ignoring them.   I'm talking about people who disagree with the original post, my statement is pristine clear, you are ignoring them when you say most people agrees with original post, and that's not accurate. And I do not post here under different names.   Please Russelk,. you have somee trouble understanding what I write, You, Mike, and Kestrel have posted several times under your usual name, that was what I was talking about. Please don't put words in my mouth, at least I know Mike long enough to know he doesn't use different name and I never said that, please tread again my post.   Neither does Mike, as far as I know. Given you say "I don’t care how many people in this thread disagree with my opinion" I do not understand why you think numbers are important. I repeat, I did NOT make any mention of people agreeing with me. My words clearly state I thought people understood me. "I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do." You say you quote me exactly, but you make arguments based on things I didn't say. Why do you do this? Could you please confine yourself to what I DO say?   Please translate, I don't understand a word you said in this parragraph. Never mentioned people agreeing with you, I mentioned people in disagreement with the ORIGINAL POST NOT WITH YOU ...PLEASE READ MY POST. Iván

*sorry, double post deleted*


Edited by russellk - July 10 2008 at 03:30

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I'm sorry, I was incorrect there. The word "classic" is in fact linked with quality, looking it up in a dictionary confirmed that. Still, if I call a group of albums "classic" that doesn't imply that all the other albums are inferior. Top quality is a requirement of "classic", but not an exclusive one.   Great, each moment we agree in more issues.   I'm not imposing any hard limits, like "5 years max.". And from your list I wouldn't call non-70s albums "Classic Rock". Of course you can always choose to be less or more inclusive. If you had to name 10 albums which best describe "Classic Rock", I'm sure that most would be from the 70s because in that decade Rock was blooming (coinciding with Prog Rock). Chuck Berry is Rock 'n' Roll more than "Rock". Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Steppenwolf, Early Eagles, Rolling Stones ... that's Classic Rock IMO. Of course if you had to name 100 albums of Classic Rock you could widen it to include newer albums, but I would never include U2 - they are simply too different from that core group of Classic Rock albums that I mentioned above. It's odd ... usually you're the hardliner and I'm the inclusive guy, when it comes to "classic" we seem to have switched roles.   Believe me I agree with you 100% but my point is that the word Classic Rock is as inaccurate and pointless as Classic Prog. If you ask ten persons which is their favorite Classic Rock band, at least one will include U2 or an 80s' band, ost surely one or two will mention an AOR band, I see a lot of rado stations self proclaimed as Classic Rock stations who exclusively play 80's music. There will never be a full agreement in this issue, by my side, Classuic Rock is limited to Blues Oriented Rock from the 60's and 70's, probably in 10 years some 80's bands will be included, but until now I don't believe they have gained that right.   That's correct - passing the test of time is a criterium for "classic". Another new point of agreement, I believe Anglagard for example fulfills both requirements we agreed in. But the pioneer Symphonic bands and their albums from ca. 1970-1974 are seen as the peak of prog ... even by a "metal guy" like me. I'm pretty sure that there must be a poll already which would confirm this. So while you could name more recent albums as "classics", the "most classic " prog genre is British Symphonic.    I'm not sure of this Mike, what some people see as correct is not necesarilly truth...Now you also seem to agree that talking about 70's as Classic era is talking almost exclusively about British Symphonic Prog, not all Prog.   It's the same word used in an entirely different context. At some point someone simply defined that "classic" has that meaning. So I don't see the point in bringing this up ... it has nothing to do with this discussion. However, the idea that the first era of Prog was the most important is shared among many members of this forum ... just look at the top 100 list and you'll see that most of them are from the early 70s. I just did a quick count and came up with 65 albums from 1969-1975 - only about 35 albums from other time periods, and most of them are in the lower ranks (50-100). It's a fact that 70's British Symphonic is the favorite sub.-genre, that's a fact, but still I don't believe popularuity defines it a Classic Era, even when I agree 70's is most surely  the Symphonic Classic era, but not Prog Classic era, that's something I can't accept.. Of course you can say that that chart is "flawed" by popularity, but I think that "classic" must always contain "popularity" at least as one criterium. Obscure albums cannot be general classics - they can be classic albums for individual persons, but in the grand scale they are second tier.   Yes, it's flawed by popularuty, but lets be honest, popularitry is one component of a Classic era, probably the less important because it's extrinsecal to the music itself, but in order to define a Progressive Rock Classic Era, you also need quality and the pass of time, something some 80's and 90's bands have also acomplished.   But most important, to talk about a Classic PROG Era, you you must talk about all genres, not about one alone.   BTW: I would call Images and Words a "Classic Prog Metal Album". But the discussion happened to be "Classic Prog", not "Classic Prog Metal". Maybe I went too far by narrowing down "Classic Prog" to the British Symphonic bands. Seems we are starting to agree in this also.  But again I'd like to point you to the top 100 list ... the top 10 mostly includes albums from the early 70s. It does not include any Neo Prog, Prog Metal or Modern Prog (90s). For the third time Mike, Idon't think popularity is that important toi define a Classic era, people love Gensis because the are familiar with them, they can find their albums everywhere and they are a great band (my favorite).   Many people ignore Symphonic bands from te 21st Century, because they don't want to take risks or simply don't know them. They surely are. But none of them have surpassed Genesis or Yes, so they still are "more classic". Would you really say that the neo prog music from the mid 80s was equally important as the classic prog music from the early 70s? IMO it absolutely pales in comparison.   No, I won't say that, but please don't cheat  you talk about Classic prog of the 70's and Neo Prog of the 80s' when as a fact we are tallking about Classic SYMPHONIC of the 70's. yes, but in our discussion you were the first to bring it up.   LOL you never loose. Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 10 2008 at 03:43