1. Marillion

2. Pendragon

3. Pallas

4. IQ

5. Twelfth Night

6. Magenta

Apart from Marillion, I don't think any of these other bands made a dent Stateside...(US readers may want to correct me...)

I couldn't even name half a dozen American Neo Prog bands. The only two that come to mind are Echolyn and Spock's Beard, neither of whom were around in the 1980's. 

I have to be honest though..... I didn't buy my first Neo Prog album until earlier this year when I bought three albums by Marillion, even though I wasn't a big fan of theirs back in the 1980's  

American neo-prog is rare, neo-prog was a European thing, mostly British at first.  

Echolyn and Spock's Beard are not neo-prog bands. 

Echolyn and Spock's Beard both featured prominently in a Neo Prog book I read recently, even though they're not listed as such on ProgArchives. 

Marillion

Cardiacs

Univers Zero

IQ

Dead Can Dance

Art Zoyd

if you cannot see the difference between the sound of the bands you listed above and the sound of Echolyn and Spock's Beard, that's on you then... 

No, I can't hear the difference. Echolyn and Spock's Beard both sound like Neo Prog bands to my ears, and up until today, I'd always assumed they were listed as Neo Prog on ProgArchives. 

so IQ and Spock's Beard sound the same to you? Really? 

Pendragon and Echolyn sound the same? 

wow...

Much as I love UZ and AZ, I don't think there is a case (I had heard of UZ in the 80s, but that was it!).  Cardiacs and DCD, maybe.

I'd say all of these bands could be recognized for their contributions to keeping the spirit of prog alive during Prog's "Dark Ages":

XTC (6 high quality studio albums released not to mention the Dukes of Stratosphere albums)

Swans (7 1980s releases)

Genesis

Yes

I won't give credit to bands who only appeared in the second half of the decade (Ozrics, IQ, Pendragon, Cardiacs) or bands whose careers fizzled or meandered from the fray (Pink Floyd) 

I  have a feeling you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said: I don't recall saying that IQ and Spock's Beard sound the same, or that Pendragon and Echolyn sound the same either. If you recall, I said that Echolyn and Spock's Beard both sound like Neo Prog bands to me, which is not the same as saying they all sound the same, if you follow my meaning. 

You said and i quote "No, I can't hear the difference." 

I actually find this pretty hard to come up with a meaningful list, Rush only had one 'classic' album after 1980. Gabriel gets rolled into the 'Genesis' original Big 6 & he's more of a art pop artist than a progger, Kate Bush, maybe?

I guess the 80's Big 6 is - Marillion

This is almost what I would consider the best 80s bands, though they started their careers in the 70s.

From JR/F, Metheny and Di Meola. 

Bowie did quite well in the 80s

Battiato from RPI had a great decade, also commercially-

What about Kate Bush?

I know Vangelis is, for some strange reasons, only in related, but he made and sold a good number of albums.

Zappa, too, did a lot of work in the 80s

There was a Big Four of Thrash Metal in the 1980's. But not in the 1990's. Same thing here.

I suppose U2, Simple Minds and Big Country were the 'Big 3' of.. well i'm not sure actually.. big, overblown, stadium-pomp- rock in the 80's?? U2 certainly openly decried any perceived 'prog' influences.. Simple Minds and Big Country perhaps more open minded to a degree.. i cant stand U2 but have a soft spot for the Scots contingent..

Actually (briefly) Runrig were quite big..

Apart from the UK NWOBPR at the start of the 80's, Marillion were the only big venue fillers.. Rush, Zappa..

It was mostly padded shoulder jackets with sleeves rolled up and bad mullets 

You may be interested to know I just Googled Neo Prog bands, and as predicted, Echolyn and Spock's Beard were right there at the top of the page, so there you go. 

It's funny that you are on the forum of one of the best prog sites, and you google about what "neo-prog' is. kinda insulting if you ask me. Also disrespectful to all users, collabs and admins that contributed to the PA database. 

Also i don't need to google "neo-prog", I've been listening to this genre since the 90s. And Spock's Beard and Echolyn are not that. 

No offense, find some better resources. If you cannot, PA should be more than enough. 

Paul, neither band play Neo. There really aren't many US Neo bands around, but if you want to hear one, play some tracks from Iluvatar: Children on Yt. Personally, I think it's an excellent album, and you'll hear the difference. 

Marillion

Alan Parsons Project

Rush

Kate Bush

Asia

Saga

I wanted to include a band called Zebra but even though they headlined Rosfest one year I think they just miss the mark as far as prog content goes (despite the fact that "who's behind the door" is pure symph prog ecstasy). The same thing goes for Triumph. Both bands were really more hard rock/ semi heavy metal overall though. Asia kind of miss the mark too technically speaking but are included because of who was in the band more than anything else and as such have strong prog ties.

There's probably a big four, five or six 1980's Stadium Rock, New Romantics, Synth Pop, Sophistipop, Hair Metal, Post Punk, Indie, Art Pop, Italo Pop etc... but an 80's Big Six of prog rock feels absurd to me. Prog wasn't really Alive and Kicking in that decade, and about as relevant as... Be Bop.

Rush (the only 70s band who arguably hit their peak in the 80s, in my opinion)

Queensryche

Marillion 

Fates Warning

IQ

Saga (mostly for helping keep the commercial viability of prog alive outside of the UK)

I was also highly tempted to add King's X; they're considered prog-related on here, but they had a massive impact on prog metal going forward. So consider them the unofficial seventh entry on my list 

Maybe we need a thread titled "How to Define and Classify Neo Prog". Then again, maybe we don't. 

neo-prog was also "big" in Japan during the 80's - though I'm not sure most of these bands travelled the planet before the 90's. 

It bites is considered proggy (not by me), and they sold a fair bit.

Neither Canada (I don't think most of anybody even knew of the existence of the other 5).

I saw Marillion in Toronto only on the Straws tour (which became the Magpie live album)... not aware they came to town before (and I was checking them out since Script's release)

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Discounting the original Big 6 Marillion Cardiacs Univers Zero IQ Dead Can Dance Art Zoyd

Interesting list, but when you know that UZ only played some 35 gigs in their first life (75 to 86)... 

not sure I would count DCD as "prog" in the 80's either. 

.

Rush

Hawkwind (an on and off affair)

Kansas (still listened to their early 80's AOR output)

Rush

Marillion

Kate Bush (professed that a big influcence on her was prog through her brothers)

Peter Gabriel

Tangerine Dream (1980-1987 mainly)

To begin with I'd say, Yes and Genesis were certainly popular in the 80's, but their progressivenes in that decade is very arguable. So it is concerning Pink Floyd but to a lesser degree.

Secondly, on basis of the books which are written about the Progressive Rock history, and which I mention in my OP to   http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127835" rel="nofollow - How to define and classify Progressive Rock? , it is difficult to conclude anything for sure about the popularity of the Neo-Prog bands in the 80's, except the one of Marillion.

So adding as a source New Musical Express' encyclopedia Who's Who in Rock & Roll (1991) which include the best chartings of each band, plus the Danish Politikens Rockleksikon (1993), and as I see it, the only Progressive Rock Big ones in the 80's can be said to be:

Jethro Tull

Rush

Marillion

Pink Floyd

The 1980s were a period where many of the big prog bands transitioned their music to the changing times in the rock music industry (aiming for more radio play, shorter songs, and less of what we normally consider prog). So, Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd, and Genesis had the chart success, but what of the prog element? I would say it declined considerably and the number of albums these bands released also declined in number (except for Rush). Marillion has been brought up often in this thread, and deservedly so, but their chart success was limited to Europe. Compare that with the "big six" of the 1970s where chart success was more widespread.

I think a better definition of "big six" should probably exclude chart success and weigh more heavily on what actual prog fans find great. This is after all a prog site, and we generally poo-poo mainstream music media because our beloved genre doesn't feel like it gets its proper due. So, why should we care about sales and chart success from the rest of the music-listening population that generally doesn't even have much familiarity with our genre? Ratings on PA and RYM would be better indicators to show which bands succeeded in getting interest from actual prog fans and thus a more representative "big six" that we, as prog fans, can identify with.

So, this may be a good starting point on determining which bands could make up the "big six" of the 1980s:

https://tinyurl.com/2p98ttb9" rel="nofollow - https://tinyurl.com/2p98ttb9  (this is a tiny URL for the top 250 albums of the 1980s on PA)

That would surely be interesting and exiting. 

So Univers Zero, Eskaton, Cardiacs & Voivod are in with a shout!

The Alan Parsons Project can be considered for sure, but there's again the question what to think about it from 

the perspective of Progressive Rock, even Who's Who in Rock & Roll  did consider the band as a part of the genre.

If to approach the whole question not historically but from the perspective of today (the greatest classics from the 80's), 

my answer wouldn't be the same, but like Progaardvark a referring to the highest rated albums on RYM and PA.

You're falling into the trap of pigeon-holing artists into only one genre when there's absolutely no reason why an artist can't be classified as both Symphonic Prog & Neo Prog at the same time, like The Flower Kings for instance, so neither of us is right or wrong. I don't want to state the obvious, but music genres are more a matter of opinion and not an exact science.  

I'd love to add Present, but I'm not sure if two albums is representative enough for an entire decade. But, wow, they were two amazing albums!

Something else is to decide on what basis to classify an artist. 

baiting and trolling again, good for you, man...

Yep, kinda what i was saying

I like it and while it is rather song oriented I personally don't think it really had much of a neo prog sound. Maybe for an american band they did but not enough for me to label it neo prog. If others believe that's the case I'm ok with that but they aren't even labelled neo prog on here. 

If there is a big six of prog in the ‘80s, it would make sense to me that they were six of the “still recent prog metal bandwagon”. Just as we look at the Big Six of the ‘70s as the instigators and innovators and influencers of so much to come, and who all had some degree of impact on the charts, and whose names were known by the general public, even if they had not actually listened to them; so (to my mind) the logical big six of the ‘80s is almost inarguably from prog metal on a global scale. A band like Marillion made next to no impact outside the UK. I knew the name only because my brother used to subscribe to a UK music magazine (where Marillion were the butt of many a joke and criticism).

Fates Warning

Kings X

Metallica

Queensryche

Rush

Ok, so that’s only five, and two are not prog “enough” for PA to consider more than “Prog Related”, but Metallica and Kings X were as big an influence on what was to come in prog metal as the other three. All of these bands I had heard of in little old New Zealand, and all had their fanbases in that wee country on the bottom of the world that is so insignificant it has been left off many a map. Some even dented the charts.

If I were to add a sixth, it would probably be another prog related band, and, in fact, the one that you are questioning how prog they ever were, and that is Iron Maiden. Maiden had prog in their music from the offset (their debut album has plenty to offer a prog fan), and while I have never heard of the three albums I’m assuming are the “prog trilogy”, there is certainly plenty of prog on Powerslave, Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son.

Personally, I’ve never heard a great deal of difference, in terms of prog, between Iron Maiden and Queensryche. To me, to grossly simplify it, they are the same band on different sides of the Atlantic. Queensryche always sounded to me like a US Maiden, and I remember the first time saying that to a friend in the US, and him laughing because he has always thought Maiden sounded like a UK Queensryche. Each is as prog as the other, and if Queensryche is more prog it’s only because when people think of prog metal they tend to think of a more US style (just as in the ‘70s we think of prog in the more UK style - hence several interesting discussions over the years about what US prog sounds like).

So much of what prog metal is these days is influenced by these five (or six) bands, just as so much of what symphonic and neo prog these days is influenced by the big six of the ‘70s. To me they are the closest equivalent, in terms of global reach and influence, and renown and chart success.

They were, in fact, pretty big in Europe, regularly playing to large venues and the support of the band to this day there can be traced right back to the Fugazi and Misplaced Childhood time. Further, they attracted a decent sized cult following in North America, certainly bigger than the sort of crowd you see on site such as Prog Ears. They were played regularly on FM radio over there.

If you are going to try to quote me then do it right. I said "nascent" not "recent." Nascent means in the early stages of or embryonic. Prog metal didn't really become a focused thing until the 90s just like heavy metal didn't really become a focused thing until the 80s. Also, I definitely wouldn't put Rush in with those other bands. In the 80s their sound had changed and they really weren't metallish at all. You might be better off putting Triumph in there instead or maybe Crimson Glory, Savatage, Watchtower or Voivod. I don't usually see that era of Metallica (or any era for that matter) referred to as prog-metal either.

… or anybody who only contributed to only half of the decade.

I couldn't disagree more with this. I understand that prog metal was an important part of prog's development, but most bands in the 80s/90s crop of the genre only achieved a large degree of success in the US (largely because most of the budding prog metal groups were from the states anyway). But regardless of the US's size and population, we absolutely need to give at least somewhat of a nod to the British groups for their influence and fanbases abroad; that's why I made my Big Six a combination of prog metal, neo-prog, and crossover bands (specifically Saga in the latter category). Plus, even though commercial success is a factor in determining a Big Six like this, I feel like your post hinged a little too much on that. Regardless of the success of songs like "Walk in the Shadows" or "Summerland", how many bands actually emulate that style these days? I hate to say it, but it seems as though the most successful prog metal artists of today prefer to abide by the djent-oriented Meshuggah playbook (not saying I dislike Meshuggah, I just don't like a lot of what they influenced).

According to the Danish Politikens Rockleksikon (1993), Queensryche didn't attained any significant international popularity 

before 1988 with their Operation: Mindcrime (released May), so that is not much of the 80's. While Fates Warning is not 

mentioned at all in this encyclopedia nor in New Musical Express' Who's Who in Rock & Roll (1991), so I wonder how popular 

they were in the 80's. 

Miriodor

Univers Zero

Art Zoyd

Brian Eno-David Byrne

The League of Gentlemen

Peter Gabriel

oh yeah, great band, but how big were they? 

Duly noted! Thanks!

The 80s was when I discovered Be Bop. I loved it.

This thread seems to have been about what prog bands were trying to keep "prog" alive in the 1980s. 

Whether or not they were successful is immaterial--despite the fact that somehow prog is still alive and well in the 21st Century. Like the so-called "Dark Ages" after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was still culture going on, thinking and art did happen, we who are alive now, in the 21st Century, just don't consider it with the same value as that of the Renaissance and beyond. Likewise prog in the 1980s: it was there, we just don't value it the same as we do the progressive rock music of the 1970s, 1990s, etc. 

But, then, I agree: to call a group a "big" six seems a bit absurd--except for the fact that several bands were still attracting large crowds, selling respectable numbers of albums--lending credibility to the fact that they were still "big". And these bands often performed many of their old prog numbers in theirs 1980s concerts even if they had moved into more poppy realms in their 1980s studio album releases. So perhaps instead of looking retrospectively at the 1980s, we should consider the ticket and album sales of the actual 1980s. Were we to do this, I would be willing to guess that the Big Six from the 1970s continued to be "big" throughout the 1980s. Rush, Genesis, and Yes, to be sure. Perhaps even Tull and ELP were still selling big in the 1980s. King Crimson, never. Peter Gabriel would also probably qualify. Pink Floyd flamed out though Dark Side of the Moon remained on the Billboard top 200 album list for the whole decade.

Can anybody else think of prog bands whose album sales rendered their presence on "bestseller" lists and/or generated concert ticket sales enough to fill stadiums? Tangerine Dream? Jean-Luc Ponty? Did Marillion (or IQ's) album sales render appearances on Top 100 album charts? or fill stadium-size concert halls like Queen, Depeche Mode, or Tears for Fears?

Marillion had plenty of album success in Europe

From wikipedia

What, no Al Di Meola??

My Big 6 from the 80´s are (in no order):

2 - Cardiacs

3 - Marillion

4 - Unives Zero

5 - Art Zoyd

6 - IQ

Not in PA I would include XTC, Cocteau Twins, Dead Can Dance

Other great artist:

Kate Bush

Twelfth Night

King Crimson

Rush

About Saga, according to the Danish Politikens Rockleksikon (1993), Saga gained some substantial popularity, 

especially in the North Europe, but beginning with their album Behaviour, released August '85, they were 

more like AOR than Progressive Rock.

So if talking about the 80's Big ones seen in the historical perspective (the OP), I can still see only 

Big Four:

            Jethro Tull 

all four having very significant popularity and being sufficient Progressive throughout the 80's - even not to 

the same degree as it was the case in the 70's.

I can't imagine using the word "big" to describe bands that A) very few people knew of at the time or B) sold very few albums and performed in small venues in front of small crowds. The "Big Six" for me would have to encompass opulence and popularity; to be called "big" is pretty much interchangeable with "popular." In order to be considered "popular" I would think there needs to be fame, notoriety, album (or singles) sales, MTV presence (in the 80s, especially), and Big venue concert performances. How can little known bands and albums with virtually nonexistent sales be considered "big"???

If you think this post was about something other than the six "biggest" acts, then perhaps you should try to convince the original poster to change the name of the thread.

Talk Talk.....Kate Bush.....Eno & Budd or Byrne or Heads.....XTC......Cocteau Twins......Japan/Sylvian

now please do the big 6 for the 1780s. 

thank you! 

Absolutely! They toured pretty heavily in the early 80s, I saw them twice in Leeds when I was at uni there (82-85). Small venues though, one was a pub, the other a small club.

Somewhere In Time and Powerslave (it was my post)

There was a lot of talk about their prog connections at the time in interviews. They believed they were nearer Pink Floyd than Led Zep in style. Highly debateable perhaps but I think they were crafting music that had a more artistic bent then the average metal band. IMO

''Are they prog?'' is also a valid part of the argument so the 6 biggest acts of the decade may not have been that big tbh given that prog had virtually disappeared off the map. Only Marillion and Rush seem absolute slam dunk to me. After that its a bunch of AOR or once important bands thinking that they have to stay relevant.

I dont get notifications of posts anymore so didnt see this till now..

Yeah, ok i'll give you that one cos there's not enough love in the world

actually ELPowell sold well and put the band back on the map.

Generally people want to credit relevance as well as popularity. Genesis became pop orientated and Floyd were at best a bloated versio of its former self. Yes The Big generator is not exactly a prog fave and Tull were virtually unlistenable (Rock Island ) . So we have Marillion and Rush - the ''Big Two'' of the 80's but then Marillion were not popular in the USA and many other places. So it's just Rush by a process of deduction ''The Big One''. 

Marillion

Tears for Fears

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=674" rel="nofollow - Queensrÿche

Peter Gabriel?

I recall those three major bands were once known as the unholy trinity of British Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, and probably still are.