Artists considered prog on here but not elsewhere

Hi,

I would prefer that each and every band was NOT judged by one album ... but the multitude of albums, instead.

We don't refine our definition of Picasso, simply because he has a blue period, a rose period and then a cubistic period. It is all a part of the artist, and the fan has no say in the matter. The same should be addressed about the music that a band makes, although some change from the start and end differently ... which can easily be solved as being a part of progressive, but going away from the mode as time went by in the biographical section.

The same thing happens with AD2 when in right into VIVE LA TRANCE they stopped the long cuts and instead made a bunch of songs, that presumably were designed to make fun of radio but they also ended up making the band "clever" and more fun to listen to, if not a bit strange and weird in their applications of their "humor". Essentially, the band that had improvised and created from improvised scenarios, all of a sudden could only do "songs" and the battles within their members became more and more acute as to which material showed up or not, ending in an album that JW called "b*****d" in an email discussion and their website STILL does not list that album, which shows you their respect for each other which probably has been there under the table for a while! The "progressive" aspect of the band was replaced by what I would consider poor choices of music other than a few things in between. The band had lost its "source" and "way" to even be considered progressive by that time. Genesis was the same thing. While I do not think of YES the same way, I find the older material not as valuable and important as the earlier material which to me also brings down the "progressive" value. 

It's a serious issue ... but I really don't want to define a "band" by one album, when the rest is crap!