My first posts seem to be moans - so let's continue in that vein - I'll be more positive, honest.

The following artists have appeared on websites such as this illustrious one and also in prog books and I have a real issue with their inclusion. I know the classification of music encompasses lots of grey areas and is the matter of great subjectivity.

Roxy Music; Kate Bush; Queen; David Bowie

All pop, pop, pop and nothing more (ok Queen started as a straight up ri=ock band but soon sold their souls for the filthy lucre)

Pekka Pohjola; Terje Rypdal - Jazz

It's a bit like classing George Gershwin as classical when his music was also plainly Jazz !!!

I re-iterate, it is a matter of opinion but prog has to have more than just intelligence in the writing.

Another bone of contention which we've all seen is the accusation of prog being self-indulgent and consisting, in the main, of long solos. Whereas this can occasionaly be valid it is not what prog is about and never has been. It is the only modern music form which has the freedom to express itself fully but without (and here's an important point) becoming avant garde.

Another important factor overlooked by the critics of the genre is the wealth of talent currently producing prog music. I cite The Flower Kings, Spock's Beard/Neal Morse, Ritual, White Willow, RPWL, In The Labyrinth, Clepsydra to name but a few. It has moved on enormously from the early days of King Crimson, ELP and Genesis. The oft mentioned exponents were instrumental in the creation of the genre but played only a very small part in it's inception. Many bands have carried the banner since those times. In fact, the only dark period for prog seems to have ben the eighties but lets face it, that was a cultural desert for all art forms, especially music.

I don't expect people to agree with me - we all have our opinions and this is just mine. Happy listening!!

Moaner!!

There are no descriptions of your six first mentioned artists/bands on http://www.progarchives.com - www.progarchives.com . Maybe they are mentioned in the forums?

They have all progressive elements in the music, but I agree, it's not enough to be characterized as progartists, with one exception. Pekka Pohjola is an important figure on the progscene with his participation in Wigwam and also his soloworks, strongly influenced by Frank Zappa. I guess some of his work is pure jazz, but have never heard it....

Scafell wrote: ... In fact, the only dark period for prog seems to have ben the eighties but lets face it, that was a cultural desert for all art forms, especially music...

Just like you, I consider that the eighties is a period of "decadence" musically speaking...however many believed that a new prog scene emerged during that period...with numerous bands which mix melodic hard rock songs to prog spirit...Saga, Asia and others...I personnaly doesn't think that they can enterily be estimated as prog...but the category itself can't stop enlarging.  

If you think about it, progressive music has originated from other musical genres. Any new form, by it's very nature, will consist of multifarious influences. That's the beauty of prog (for me) in that it has taken elements of predominantly psych/classical and jazz and created it's own art form. These originating genres are essential in the make up of prog but are not themselves "prog". This is my beef with the artists I mentioned earlier (which must also include 10cc) - their music does not explore (for me) any new territory outside that of pop.

As I said, all very subjective. The most important thing is that we all love the music that we ourselves like and in common with most human beings we like to categorize and place things into recognizable boxes ie prog/psych/art-rock etc..

I'm sure I have yet to hear the last of this - that's what these forums are for after all.

Scafell wrote: The following artists have appeared on websites such as this illustrious one and also in prog books and I have a real issue with their inclusion. I know the classification of music encompasses lots of grey areas and is the matter of great subjectivity. Roxy Music; Kate Bush; Queen; David Bowie

I am not going to defend the others mentioned but QUEEN & BOWIE, in my mind, definately belong in the "Art Rock" subcategory of progressive rock.

My personal opinion (worth what you paid for it) is that we unfairly exclude several bands from that category as is.  Example: JOURNEY, before Steve Perry completely took over and they fired Aynsley Dunbar.

Queen II had many prog moments and the Prophet song, from NATO, was a pure prog epic. Rick Wakeman played on much of the best Bowie stuff. Changes, Space Oddity, Moonage Daydream............. Prog. "Let's Dance" = not prog.

What I think needs to be considers is whether these bands were prog or they used prog techniques as accents to their pop. The "taste of the week technique." If it's popular, use it. Remember when everybody, during the black hole '80's, used the same synth patches and drum machines? 

OK, my first post - so I think I'll throw the cat among the pigeons here, as there is a large cross-section of prog that is missing from this site, namely progressive metal - the 1980s variety.

Those missing include Diamond Head and Budgie - without either of whom Metallica might not have come about. And what about Metallica themselves? Surely Master of Puppets is a prog album if ever there was one? Or Justice for All - over the top, maybe. Pretentious, definitely. But still very progressive. Even Ride the Lightning and Kill 'em All deserve a better label than simply "thrash".

Now I've touched on the borders of NWOBHM, I'd like to be brave and suggest that early Def Leppard (High and Dry and On Through The Night) are prog, as with the early Judas Priest albums. We can forgive Priest their technical ineptitudes and poor production due to the high quality of the riffs they produced and developed.

Queen, undoubtedly are one of those bands that people overlook when thinking about prog - and everyone says "Oh, maybe Queen II is proggy". What about Queen I? A Night At the Opera - Bohemian Rhapsody is probably so familiar to us through over-exposure that we dismiss it. But it's a remarkable piece - and truly progressive in every sense of the word. Innuendo, too, is their last-gasp look back to their roots without alienating their "pop" audience. Sheer brilliance, if you ask me.

There seem to be a lot of threads here on "Is X prog" or "Is X not prog", but none that discuss what prog is. I hereby volunteer to start that thread

In that respect, there is little that we cannot embrace under the umbrella term "prog" - which is good, as truly great music includes as much as possible from "other genres" and knows that it is ignorance to exclude.

I don't go for sub-dividing prog as I don't really like labels. Prog is label enough, in my opinion - and I'm very guilty of expressing my opinion at every opportunity - hope I don't cause any offence in my first posting!

Cheers!

Cert

Welcome Aboard, Cert.

I've always held the early Queen catalogue as Prog. Innuendo could be. Doesn't Steve Howe guest on a track?

Anyway, ... Great post. Debate is the best way to share ideas.    

Certif1ed wrote: OK, my first post - so I think I'll throw the cat among the pigeons here, as there is a large cross-section of prog that is missing from this site, namely progressive metal - the 1980s variety. Those missing include Diamond Head and Budgie - without either of whom Metallica might not have come about. And what about Metallica themselves? Surely Master of Puppets is a prog album if ever there was one? Or Justice for All - over the top, maybe. Pretentious, definitely. But still very progressive. Even Ride the Lightning and Kill 'em All deserve a better label than simply "thrash". Now I've touched on the borders of NWOBHM, I'd like to be brave and suggest that early Def Leppard (High and Dry and On Through The Night) are prog, as with the early Judas Priest albums. We can forgive Priest their technical ineptitudes and poor production due to the high quality of the riffs they produced and developed. ...

I think you're overdoing it now! I admit that Judas Priest did some proggish stuff for their second album, but that's all (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of early Priest). And although I like Metallica, how can you call THAT prog?!  It's progressive, but that's not the only thing that counts. In their way, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Mercyful Fate, and even Slayer were progressive!! You need to offer more than just tight metal songs and time changes to be considered prog. I love Diamond Head, but it's just NWOBHM, nothin more nothing less! And don't say that you think Raven is prog as well!

danbo wrote: Welcome Aboard, Cert. I've always held the early Queen catalogue as Prog. Innuendo could be. Doesn't Steve Howe guest on a track? Anyway, ... Great post. Debate is the best way to share ideas.

yeah, right. Fat-bottomed girls make the world go round!

I listen to a lot of 'non prog' Kate Bush being one such artist.The surreal 'The Dreaming' is the nearest she got to prog but still I wouldn't identify it as 'prog' by any stretch. I think most people would accept that prog started with Yes,ELP,Genesis and King Crimson and then continued with UK in the late seventies.There are hosts of bands that were infuenced by these including Marillion,IQ,Flower Kings etc.Do we really need a defintion??

Queen were never prog but were a brilliant band nevertheless.

The Who,Led Zeppelin,Black Sabbath had prog moments but definetly fall into the 'not prog' category.

And The Sweet,Gary Glitter and Kiss were never prog bands

Quote "I think you're overdoing it now! I admit that Judas Priest did some proggish stuff for their second album, but that's all (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of early Priest). And although I like Metallica, how can you call THAT prog?!  It's progressive, but that's not the only thing that counts. In their way, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Mercyful Fate, and even Slayer were progressive!! You need to offer more than just tight metal songs and time changes to be considered prog. I love Diamond Head, but it's just NWOBHM, nothin more nothing less! And don't say that you think Raven is prog as well! " /Quote

(How do you do that box thing?)

I'm serious - especially about Metallica up to "Justice for All". The music broke boundaries and pushed the form of heavy metal to the point that everyone panicked and started inventing new terms - thrash metal, speed metal, etc. New bands like Helloween started sprouting - and, of course, Kai Hansen who tried valiantly to inject classical into thrash (or was it the other way around?). As a result, we got the Yngwies and Satrianis coming to the fore. Steve Vai has always been a law unto himself - and IS prog. So there.

I started another thread on "What is Prog" to help on this one - coz I really think that Diamond Head's "Living on Borrowed Time" IS prog. If IQ are prog, then so are DH

Damn right Zeppelin were progressive, in many ways - Whole Lotta Love being a prime example - and as for the Beatles... Man, Sergeant Pepper was the first prog album - the very first to use the Recording Studio as an instrument for starters! "Tomorrow Never Knows" off Revolver, and the White Album's "Revolution Number 9" are more prog than a lot of prog!

Slayer - well I was actually going to suggest them too, but really they just progressed a genre - the music they produced stayed well within the confines of Thrash Metal - defined it, even. You may as well try to suggest that Napalm Death were prog!

Mercyful Fate, Hmm. Raven - kinda, but no. Technically incredible, and boundary pushing but, much as I hate labels, still metal.

Check out Ride The Lightning, Master Of Puppets and Justice for All. They are definitely prog, IMNSHO

I know I go on a bit!

Cheers

The Enid, back in the day, (pre 1987) were the best (live) prog band around. Brilliantly symphonic highbrow neo-classical sound but is it prog-rock? They sounded like no other band and were labelled prog by default, though it must be said a large percentage of their fans considered themselves prog fans (myself included).

Perhaps that is the only criterium that matters.

On the other hand the statement "I'm a prog fan, I like Diamond Head, ergo Diamond Head are prog." is ludicrous. Prog has its grey areas, but Diamond Head don't occupy any of them.

dude wrote: stormcrow:YEAH!! Journey had their "prog Moments"..not sure if they were cosistent though!!

They were not.  And the more Perry (pop rock genius that he might have been) influenced that band, the less progressive they became. To my increasing disgust and their increasing bank balances.

That is why I see the firing of Dunbar as the point at which they digressed into (although still very talented) just another hard-pop rock band.

Their first three albums (which very few people ever actually heard) still stand as good, entertaining examples of progressive fusion rock of the time.  It is no coincidence that that started to change on the hiring of Perry as a frontman for their 4th album.

Stormcrow wrote: dude wrote: stormcrow:YEAH!! Journey had their "prog Moments"..not sure if they were cosistent though!! They were not.  And the more Perry (pop rock genius that he might have been) influenced that band, the less progressive they became. To my increasing disgust and their increasing bank balances. That is why I see the firing of Dunbar as the point at which they digressed into (although still very talented) just another hard-pop rock band. Their first three albums (which very few people ever actually heard) still stand as good, entertaining examples of progressive fusion rock of the time.  It is no coincidence that that started to change on the hiring of Perry as a frontman for their 4th album.

I think Journey REALLY hit the crapper when Greg Rollie left. The guy that replaced him laid the scmaltzy stuff on thick, like spackling. He wrote a lot of the love sick .

raggy wrote: On the other hand the statement "I'm a prog fan, I like Diamond Head, ergo Diamond Head are prog." is ludicrous. Prog has its grey areas, but Diamond Head don't occupy any of them.

No-one said that.

Please give your reasoning why DH can't be considered prog rather than just stating that they're not - it looks like you've just said "I'm a prog fan, Diamond Head aren't prog, ergo Diamond Head aren't prog!".

It was DH that got me interested in prog, way back in 1980 - compared to the rest of the NWOBHM crop, these guys WERE prog, and regarded as genre-pushing gods in some circles.

I think they ARE prog because although the music has the surface sheen of typical 1980's NWOBHM, and the technical ability is only a little higher than average for that genre, there is something else - that magical "prog" ingredient that extends beyond the Rodney Matthews covers. Sean Harris' vocals are not the typical HM scream - they are considered, melodic, dramatic and exciting. There are no keyboards - maybe that is why DH are not prog?

Consider the album "Living On Borrowed Time". It features the famous "Am I Evil" - an 8-minute epic that does not fit comfortably into the HM mould.

A typical HM track follows typical pop song format with the notable exception of the extended guitar solo. Guitars tend to be heavily overdriven. It also tends to be about a testosterone-fuelled subject. Songs about evil are acceptable, but songs about far-off fantasy lands of old tend to dwell in the realms of prog.

Your typical HM track will not have time changes and key changes - especially to the extent that "Am I Evil" does.

When Metallica covered it as the B-side to their epic "Creeping Death" (for crying out loud - a 7 and a half minute single!), they left out most of the delicate light and shade that DH were more than capable of.

While agreeing that some of my other suggestions are borderline, I would like to see a GOOD reason why we couldn't consider Diamond Head as prog.

I truly believe they are.

And I'll stop harping on about it right now

Not sure about Weather Report or Conflict - never listened to 'em.

Radiohead is a definite possibilty - why aren't they prog? They explore new territories all the time - never sitting still. OK Computer was a masterpiece - a fine balance of commercial appeal combined with stunning experimentation. The track Paranoid Android is a 7-minute epic with several forms - and breakdowns of those forms. Going back to "Pablo Honey" and "The Bends", there are some sublime moments of progressiveness - particularly "The Bends".

The Beatles I do not think can be considered a prog band, as such, any more than the Stones, as that was not their main thrust. Mostly they concentrated on writing cutting edge pop songs - although on the albums, there is a lot of inpsired experimentation. Even the Stones experimented - witness "Their Satanic Majesties Request".

"...Borrowed Time" is a prog album, IMO, as much as any by the likes of Saga, Savatage, etc - but not Iron Maiden. Iron Maiden wrote some long Heavy Metal pieces with aspirations to prog, but stayed within the confines of the genre. "Rime of the Ancient Mariner", for example can be considered prog, but the album "Piece of Mind", while superb, is not a progressive album per se. "Hallowed be Thy Name" is progressive, whille "Run To The Hills" and the title track of "Number of the Beast" are blatant HM "pop" songs.

OK, you might say, what about "Kayleigh"?

If you've ever heard the magnificent 1984 Hammersmith Odeon Concert, it's much easier to hear how Kayleigh fits into the concept. In the light of its saturation on FM airplay, it's much harder. It's all about context, I think.

raggy wrote: The Enid, back in the day, (pre 1987) were the best (live) prog band around.

BTW, did you listen to one of their last opus called "White goddess", I think it's a beautifully written album, blending classical music (sarabande, gavotte, chaconne, gigue) with prog-rock music (fantasy, riguardon...). They remain one of the few classical-prog bands (yes, I mean "classical" and not "symphonic", refering to their classical influences as quoted above) not to head away from their classical roots (as is not the case with ELP : "Dark moon" is such a crap, Wakeman and so on).

lucas wrote: raggy wrote: The Enid, back in the day, (pre 1987) were the best (live) prog band around. BTW, did you listen to one of their last opus called "White goddess", I think it's a beautifully written album, blending classical music (sarabande, gavotte, chaconne, gigue) with prog-rock music (fantasy, riguardon...). They remain one of the few classical-prog bands (yes, I mean "classical" and not "symphonic", refering to their classical influences as quoted above) not to head away from their classical roots (as is not the case with ELP : "Dark moon" is such a crap, Wakeman and so on).

As a former member of The Stand, and dedicated fan having first seen them at Reading Rock fest in 83, aged 16, ("Something Wicked This Way Comes" make or break tour) I followed RJG and Steve Stewart's carreers, even staying over at their home in Suffolk after gigs. Being an Enid fan was like being a part of a familly. "Members, one of another" was the Stands motto.

 It all went desperately wrong around 88/89. RJG told me that things had been said between him and Steve that couldn't be unsaid and the two had decided to go their seperate ways, (bit of a lovers tiff if you ask me.)

Anyway, I got disillusioned and lost touch. I know they tried their hands at dance crossover when the wolf was at the door with disastrous results. I don't Know what they sound like these days but it was truelly incredible to experience their live shows in that period.

I agree with Certif1ied re Budgie (although they were going in the 1970's, and are not the "1980s variety", if you were applying that to Budgie, Cert.). And some of their albums have covers by Roger Dean! (OK, OK, I know so did Osibisa!) The cover of Squawk is such a good visual link to the music, in my opinion.

I have to have have my fix of 'In For The Kill' every now and then.

Which reminds me of my time in digs in London in the 1970s. One day a Japanese student arrived, and he couldn't speak a word of English. Well, actually he could speak three words: "coffee shop" and "rock". I put the LP 'In For The Kill' on the platter and a pair of headphones on the guy's head; you should have seen the grin on his face when the first track kicked in.

And while we're at it, I have always felt that Black Sabbath's album Sabbath Bloody Sabbath has a prog feel to it, especially with Rick Wakeman guesting on piano and synth. It's the only Black Sabbath album I like/own. All the tracks are good, but I especially like Spiral Architect.

 What about Remy Zero or Elbow? Any of you familiar with these guys? There is a background instrumentation, not unlike the Church and Radiohead. Swells and ambient flows which suggest the bands has some prog influence. The Elbow singer is not unlike Peter Gabriel and I heard he (PG) discovered them?

http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001">

Perhaps this great site should consider a name change, to QUALITYMUSIC ARCHIVES.