Jump to content

Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

La Bourée?

"Jethro Tull recorded a version of La Bourée by Bach in which they turned the piece into a "sleazy jazzy night-club song" (in Ian Anderson's own words)."

First of all, it's spelled "bourrée." But secondly, "La Bourrée" just means "the bourrée," and the bourrée is just a Baroque dance form. Bach wrote tons of them. Someone who knows more about Jethro Tull than I do should find out which bourrée in particular they did the sleazy jazzy night-club arrangement of.

Check sundaybaroque.org. I can't get the site to load at the moment, but they played the piece recently and even mentioned Jethro Tull having made it particularly well known. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it: It's the fifth movement (of 6) from Suite for Lute in e minor BWV 996 (BC L166). --Scottandrewhutchins

Good research!!! :o) MarkCertif1ed 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous rewrites

I realize everyone has their own pet bands they want to talk about, but I had to add a line about the band Asia. I remember prog fans' huge anticipation of this mixing of King Crimson, Yes, and ELP, and having to listen to the album over and over because I simply could not believe my ears. Due to its visibility and stunning reorientation, Asia alone could represent the early 80's turnaround.

Fair enough... but the fact that you wrote "suprised and disappointed" is POV writing... what, no one in the world was not disappointed by it? plattopustalk 16:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I knew, but it's a tough one. I assume there are subtle pov philosophy debates on wikipedia, so maybe someone will edit my words in a way that will capture in a few words a reasonable representation of who thought Asia was going to be what, and what they considered Asia to be once the group appeared. After all, even "much anticipated" is still pov, and I assume everyone acknowledges you're always caught within pov.

Hi, I wonder if it wouldn't be more wise to mention first what prog rock IS and only than mention elements that are common to prog rock but not necessery. If there are no objections, I'm going to change the phrasing a bit. -Marduk 18:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph from the article because he was too problematic in my view:

"Today, progressive rock continues to be created and admired by a solid core of enthusiasts, but seems to be paid little attention by the mainstream music press and receives virtually no radio airplay. The genre can no longer convincingly claim to be progressing rock music at the rate it once did, and those innovations that are being made are usually ignored or derided by the commercial world at large, and by progressive rock enthusiasts themselves."

1. 'Today' is not encyclopedic.

2. "The genre can no longer convincingly claim to be progressing rock music at the rate it once did" - progressing rock? come on, that sounds awful.

3. I think it is enough to say that it's peak was in 70's, with decline in 80's and reincarnation in 90's, and that the article says. It seems to be enough to me. -Marduk 18:29, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I edited this section a lot -

"Critics have often derided the genre as pompous and self-indulgent. This is because, unlike such stylistically consistent genres as country or hip hop, progressive rock is difficult to define in a single conclusive way."

1) I don't see how the reputation prog-rock has as pompous and self-indulgent has anything to do with it being "difficult to define stylistically", and I really fail to see how anyone could think there was a connection there. The largely negative reputations of albums like Brain Salad Surgery and Tales Of Topographic Oceans and whatnot doesn't have much to do with them being difficult to define stylistically, because they aren't. I agree that as musical genre categories go, prog rock is one of the hardest to define boundaries for, but prog rock has a reputation as being pompous and self-indulgent because a lot of is pompous and self-indulgent. Defining stylistic genre boundaries is neither here nor there.

2) country and hip hop are not particularly "stylistically consistent" anyway. like zappa, radiohead etc being "prog" or not as mentioned in the article, there are a lot of artists where if you wished you could have (and people do have) long debates about whether or not they were definitely "country artists" (Songs Ohia, Will Oldham, etc) or "hip hop artists" (Boards of Canada, DJ Shadow, Portishead, etc).

I also changed "virtuosity" to the less loaded "skill", removed something about the intricate harmonies "requiring repeated listening to grasp" (which is arguable, and what does "grasp" mean in this context anyway?), and a couple other minor things. hope there are no problems.

--Jamieli 18:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The reason why I'm writing my opinion here are my claims to some doubtful statements, the way of wording and inaccuracy, encountering here and there. In this article I can hardly understand the statement that 'other bands took the genre in a more commercial direction' as well as the one following it, which states that 'these bands, including Renaissance, The Alan Parsons Project, Queen and Electric Light Orchestra, are sometimes classified as "progressive rock", "commercial rock", or "symphonic pop."' What was in in the author's mind when he/she mentioned the commercial interest of these bands? Did he/she got acquaitant with them? Or maybe he/she had the unique chance to penetrate into their's brains to find that sort of thinking? I just imagined someone of these guys telling his colleagues:' you know, there are plenty of ways of getting more money, let's turn our music to commercial direction. Agree? Good!' And I would like to turn your mind to recognizing that such terms as "commercial rock", "symphonic pop" and the like are not the special ones, but are often used by amateurs rather than by professional musicians and scholars. All this does also for decoding the styles of every of these bands.

Absolutely right - I've removed the offending paragraphs. MarkCertif1ed 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


For example, does someone really intend to call Queen a pop (even 'symphonic') band? As far as I know, it's well-established a long ago, that Queen were (and still are) a rock band. It can be argued to what extent they were a progressive rock band (it's very difficult though, if one is going to remember that they wrote in every genre of rock and even pop, and disco), but there're no reason to describe them as a 'symphonic pop' - their instrumentation was neither 'pop' nor 'symphonic', it was only allusion - very powerful, indeed - with symphonic music.

Not such a good example - Queen I, II and ANATO are, to my ears, pure Progressive Rock albums, and there is much that was proggy about them - but the "trouble" is that they were never "pure" Prog, stemming as they did from the Glam Rock "movement".
Don't want to get into the endless debate, but Queen are/were one of the very few bands you could categorise however you liked and be right and wrong at the same time - they were all things to all people. /ends gushing fanboyism... :o) MarkCertif1ed 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


The other my claim goes in the same direction, though it concerns the article on hard rock, to the use of words 'radio-friendly rock'. When we're saying 'hard rock' we're already recognizing its 'hard' nature as it is described in that article. That is the point. Nothing else. So, the general idea is that such terms as the ones I have just mentioned can be used in ordinary speech, but are inadmissible for use in the special research. IML-NT 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) IML-NT, 4 July 2007

Again, agreed - the article needs another "get tough" session. *Cracks knuckles* MarkCertif1ed 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the WP:MOS dictates that wikilinks should only appear on the first instance of a term in an article (as well as in captions, etc). I've removed a lot of unnecessary links, but if you find any more it'd be a good idea to remove them. plattopus (talk) 06:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The most important feature of prog

In my opinion, #1 feature of progressive rock that differentiates it from other music genres is the harmony. Progressive harmony does not use traditional 5/7-tone scales, it rather uses the complete chromatic scale with no limitations. This is the key point. Music can not be treated as progressive if it is composed in major/minor/blues/rock/whatever-traditional key. I guess, this point would much purify and simplify the definition.

This is very hard to quantify. Like most musical genres, prog is predominantly diatonic. There is a greater degree of exploration into augmented and diminished scales than in most music, but this is also true of jazz and 20th century classical music. There is a greater degree of chromaticism in the chord progressions than in vanilla rock, but I can point you to medieval music of which this is also true.
I would very much disagree. I don't think there are any prog bands who solely use a chromatic scale. At best, perhaps a third of prog bands use chromatic scales from time to time. I don't think any reasonable definition of "progressive rock" would exclude Yes and early Genesis; the former abandoned traditional harmony on the first half of side 3 of Tales and Genesis never did.
The # 1 feature of prog bands might arguably be that they modulate a lot. Yes rarely stays in one key for a whole piece. But you can still divide their pieces into sections, and those sections are almost always major or minor Western keys. Lawrence King 11:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The #1 feature of Prog Rock is that there is no #1 feature, apart from a desire to be, or a perceprtion by their audience that the music is somehow "progressive" (whatever that means). :0)

I have performed in-depth Post-graduate level analysis on around 120 Progressive Rock albums over the last couple of years, and have come to the conclusion that Progressive Rock bands experiment with all of the basic parameters of music - which you could view as the defining feature in itself - but the one that stands out most is form.

To verify this conclusion through experience, if you listen to any individual Progressive Rock band that is generally accepted as such, the one linking factor is the expansion or conscious attempt at destruction of standard rock song form. This is as opposed to "jam" bands, or bands that claim to write "free-form" music, whose pieces generally display a lack of understanding of the concept of form rather than a conscious decision to fight against it or develop it. Such bands do not indicate any real level of composition, relying more on improvisation - which may be a fine line in some cases, e.g. Can, but to any reasonably competent musician, the difference is reasonably clear.

Another area of form that can be verified simply by listening, is the incorporation of formal elements from classical music in a significant and representative number of Progressive Rock groups. For example, this might be to base a piece of music on a classical piece - obvious example being ELP. This might also be to use classical-style harmonies to invoke a feeling of classical music, and even contrapuntal or leitmotif devices - an obvious example here being Gentle Giant.

There are some sites that go as far as to claim that Yes produced symphonic structures - but I have yet to verify this. The word "structure" may be viewed as synonymous with form, for the purposes of this discussion.

Agreement (or disagreement!)?

MarkCertif1ed 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

politics in progressive rock

I added the following line " Besides, as regards many early 1970's progressive rock bands (notably German ones) lyrics are very often concerned with politics (left-wing) and social issues." I see it's been removed, but yet I think it should be there, as the article in fact overlooks this very important aspect of progressive rock. Take such German prog bands as Eulenspygel, Floh de Cologne, Hanuman, Lied des Teufels, Coupla Prog, Electric Mud, Embryo, Hoelderlin, Necronomicon, Out of Focus, Profff. Wolf, or other European ones, such as Italian Jumbo, or famous English artists such as Henry Cow or Robert Wyatt. Many of the early 1970's German progressive rock bands were more or less directly related to the 1968 student movement. In fact, progressive rock was not just about dragons, fairy tales and princesses. I think one should not just focus on such maninstream bands as Yes or Genesis. Progressive rock was more than that. - Wolvin

Not in the eyes of 99% of the Earth's population. Of the bands you mentioned there, only Henry Cow is what I would call a "notable" band, so the political views of those other artists barely warrant mention on an article that also includes such mainstream heavyweights as Yes and Genesis. --plattopus (talk) 17:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the political angle could be removed from the page. After all, even if some English prog bands were political, they were less explicitly political than their contemporaries in the folk scene, or even the psychedelic scene (Jefferson Airplane had more politics on one album than King Crimson and Yes had in their entire careers). Henry Cow was political but is hardly "mainstream" English prog.

Was Europe different? I wouldn't call Magma political in any comprehensible sense, and when PFM became political their music went downhill. However, I don't know the German bands you mention. So I reworded the paragraph in question to show that English bands' politics, if expressed at all, was done through their fiction. (See Bill Martin's book for an excellent analysis of why this sort of political critique is more valuable than straightforward Dylanesque politics.)

In fact, if I had to name the three most political English-speaking prog bands, they would probably be Henry Cow, Renaissance, and Rush. Guess what? These bands are Marxist, traditional English conservative, and Ayn Randist, respectively. Two out of three are on the "right"!

I vote to remove the reference to politics. At most, we need a page on German Progressive Rock bands, and then we could refer to the fact that prog bands wer usually not explicitly political and say "except for German prog <link>". How does that sound? Lawrence King 08:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rush is not "Ayn Randist", nor are they right wing. Neil was influenced by her writing for a period of time, but is not correct to call Rush a right wing, "Randist" band. His use of her influence haunts them to do this day, but if you read anything he wrote post-1976 you can see that he is far from an Objectivist or Ayn Rand disciple.
Neil Peart has described himself, both previously and more recently, as a libertarian, so they're not that far from Ayn Rand; not right-wing, but definitely not left-wing either. And I've never read an interview where they have stated that the influence "haunts them". --Joshua Boniface 01:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that if 99 % of the Earth's population might not have heard of Eulenspygel or Jumbo et al., it would be justified to claim that 99 % of them have not heard of "progressive rock" at all. So should we scrap the whole entry altogether? Where's the dividing line between what is known enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia and the rest? Is it enough to say "I don't know so it's not known"? Because a band was not a success in the States does not mean its non-existence. It looks like anything that's not English-speaking is obscure and should not be at least mentioned. I think it should. The other thing is whether the issue of politics should be left out. Well, it's an important issue and deserves a mention in the context of lyrics. Where these lyrics politically-oriented or not? Were I a novice wanting to consult an encyclopedia I would certainly want to find the answer to this question. Why is it justified to say that lyrics were about religion then? I don't know many outstanding prog bands that were religion-oriented. If ELP's Tarkus is against war, isn't it political or regarding social issues? I think that I mention a phenomenon that "did" exist and should not be obscured. At least as a note - I did not elaborate on that, did I? I think that adding an article on German prog is a good idea and as soon as I have some time I'll try to start one. However, I believe that at least a small mention, in the present form, should be left in the main article. - Wolvin


Okay, I'm fine with keeping the current version.

I think Wikipedia articles sometimes end up with "a little of everything". The current article's list of "lyric themes" looks like a bunch of people tried to think of every topic that prog songs ever dealt with. So we have "science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness". Why not add supermarkets ("Selling England") and whales, too?

My opinion is that an article on a SUB-genre should focus on what makes the SUB-genre distinctive, so this article should focus on how prog rock differs from rock in general. And the fact is, that in the English-speaking world, the most distinctive thing about prog lyrics is they use a wider vocabulary and they much more often focus on fantasy, science fiction, and English romanticism. Songs about "war" and "love" are far more common in commercial rock than in prog! They certainly don't belong in this list. I agree with you that religion doesn't belong here -- I can think of one KC song, one ELP song, and a few very early Genesis songs that dealt with religion. And "madness"? I can think of two Pink Floyd albums; what else? (Sidepoint: I don't consider Floyd to be prog. They're psychedelic. People bought their albums because of the sound effects, not because of the key changes.)

If someday we have separate articles on German prog, Italian prog, etc., we can revisit this question. By then this article will be long enough that it will need to be broken up anyway!

Anyway, I'm ranting now, so I'll sign off. Lawrence King 09:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italian Progressive

I noticed that there are no references at all to the great Italian branch of progressive rock. I am not versed in the matter, but am almost sure that no article about progressive could be considered complete without references to the great Italian bands. There isn't any reference to fussion either, there should be. Just remember that at the very origin of both fussion and progressive, it is not possible to draw a perfect distinction between both kinds of music. --Paiconos 18:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a mention of the European prog scene, which is certainly very important both yesterday and today. If you visit Usenet you will see that modern prog fans in the UK and USA are often discovering the 1970's Italian and French bands!
But the pages for PFM, Banco, and Le Orme are empty. Your turn!
Lawrence King 09:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'm trying to find informnation on an Italian
prog rock band from at least '66. predated
King Crimson by a few years - the only other thing
I know is that the singers first name in Vincenzo
and had a #1 album in 1970 on the classical opera
circuit.


Goblin deserves at least some mention on this page, even if it's not listed among the major bands.Scottandrewhutchins 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

Not really, there are already lots of examples. The redundant examples should really be restricted (see comments by other users somewhere on this talk page in in html-comments in the article source). There's a list of progressive rock artists en bands where the band can and should be added. Regards --LimoWreck 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the full article yet, but one group that was very popular among my 1970s prog friends was "Area" (who called themselves an "international pop group"). Others were "Banco Del Mutuo Socorsso" and "PFM." One German group that also made an impact in our universe was SFF (Schicke Fuhrs and Frohling).ZincOrbie 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard about Conception?? Khullah 03:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute!

Who added all the Mars Volta crap? They're an obscure band that don't deserve to be the most-mentioned group in the article.

Perhaps not, but they definitely deserve a place somewhere... since they're currently the only progressive metal band who could be called "popular" in the mainstream.
What? Tool appears to be enjoying a lot more publicity than Volta. They also have garnered significantly greater success in the way of airplay. And Dream Theater are becoming increasingly "popular" as well, their last album made the top 40.
They are not all that obscure. In fact, they are the only progressive rock band on the radio/tv for quite some time.
And who the hell switched Ween for Radiohead?
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed it. Remove?
I concur (if this is a democracy....) Lawrence King 19:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why was the image changed?

Just wondering why the first image was changed from a Yes concert photo to a Tull album? -- plattopusis this thing on? 17:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it appears to be a JT fanboy making the changes (see his/her edit history, especially in the sandbox), so I'm going to revert it. -- plattopusis this thing on? 17:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that image change... I'm new to Wikipedia, and was just experimenting around. -- Rantinghuman 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why no Mike Oldfield?

I guess it already got debated, but... why no mention of Mike Oldfield? [1] -- 6 18:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it already got debated it would be on this talk page... and it's not, so it probably hasn't. He deserves a mention somewhere, no doubt... probably just a case of noone actually taking the time to include him. plattopustalk 10:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I came to this discussion page to suggest the same thing. I'm listening to Tubular Bells at this very moment. Patrick Lucas 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many bands listed as examples

Recently there have been a whole lot of extra bands listed as examples. I think this is inappropriate, because this article is not intended as a list of prog bands. It is intended as a description of progressive rock.

For example, the following paragraph is absurd:

The point of this paragraph is that one feature that is common in prog is concept albums. This point is completely clear once the reader reads two examples. Why do we need 13 examples, including one that claims to not be an example after all?

I don't have a proposed solution. If Wikipedia had formal editors they could prune this down, but if I did that folks would take it as an attack on their favorite bands. Any suggestions? Lawrence King 07:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do what I did to the progressive metal article: remove all but the most important of examples, and create list of progressive rock artists. plattopustalk 08:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I just went ahead and yanked out a bunch of examples from the Characteristics section. I edit anonymously so there's no-one for people to get mad at :-). I tried to keep the most important examples but in some cases the decision process was admittedly pretty arbitrary. I also made a number of other changes, hopefully improvements. Feel free to discuss them further, but it's probably best not to add much stuff back in without discussing it here first.
I kept all the bullet points that were there before in some form, but arguably some of them could be removed or consolidated (I did do the latter to a certain extent). More merciless editors than myself should feel free to chip in with (at least) suggestions.

I love the results! Lawrence King 05:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added/changed a lot since then. This has included some fairly merciless editing of other people's contributions (I've either nuked them or worked them in in ways their authors never intended [grin]; I think they only thing I left alone was when someone added Steve Howe to the list of famous soloists). Let me know what you think (and that applies to whoever is lurking too).

Break this page up into multiple pages?

...can someone please explain why in the section on progressive rock progressive metal groups are mentioned so much? In fact, to quote the article on progressive metal, "these bands are usually happy to be known as progressive, although the music bears very little resemblance to the original progressive rock form"... and yet it contradicts itself by mentioning the likes of Green Carnation and Dream Theater as examples of progressive rock bands that have made some long songs...

Also, the mars volta I don't think could be considered post-rock by any means, in fact, again, the page on themself doesn't mention post-rock so I think the mention of them being should be removed? (80.3.96.40)

I agree. Muse isn't a post-rock band either.
This page is sort of depressing to me, because every time we prune it, the stuff comes back. At least once a week someone feels it's necessary to add in their favorite bands.
In my opinion, the facts are these: From about 1969 until the late 1970's, everyone agrees what is meant by "progressive rock". After this, there is a great dispute. Therefore this page should separate these out. The fact is, that the heirs of progressive rock clearly include the 1990's prog revival (Spock's Beard), and prog-metal, and groups like the modern King Crimson. But these groups are nothing like each other. They are different branches from a single tree: different genres entirely.
Primus, for example, clearly are influenced by the 1980's Crimson. But if you say they are "influenced by progressive rock" that statement would be ambiguous.
So how should the article be structured? I think ideally there should be separate articles for each post-1980 genre, and then this article should focus on pre-1980 prog. After all, the entire reason that any post-1980 band has claimed the "prog" title is because of similarites to 1970's prog bands. All of the "characteristics of prog" listed on this page were in 1970's prog (in varying quantities). In 1972 King Crimson radically changed their style and a new "characteristic" was added to prog; but Spock's Beard radically changed in 1998 they would have no longer been considered "progressive". In other words, the genre is fundamentally defined by the 1970's bands, even if you personally prefer other bands.
But I don't believe for a moment that I can persuade everyone that this is a good change..... Lawrence King 08:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me again (no usename), you have convinced me, obviously I am not objecting to the mentioning of progressive metal bands, but not in an article about progressive metal rather than progressive rock unless its in the context of music that has debateably been influenced by progressive rock. I just don't see the benefit to either progressive metal or progressive rock to have the former used wrongly in this article. To be honest simply deleting references to progressive metal bands would I think be sufficent and then a short piece at the end linking to other progressive styles. Waiting to see if anyone objects...

Keep in mind that we should be using summary style. Just to throw something out there: what about having an article progressive music that explains all the different ways that term is used, with sub-articles with titles like progressive rock and progressive metal. The articles on individual genres should focus primarily in describing what the style is like (i.e. what makes progressive rock different from other kinds of rock and other kinds of progressive music) and then a separate article on the history of progressive rock that could explain all the little permutations and varieties over the years. Of course, that's a lot of work, but that's what I think you oughtta work towards. Tuf-Kat 20:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, we already have progressive music. I thought it redirected to progressive rock. Still, there could be better interlinking and use of summary style among these progressive genre pages. I think it's clear that 80s and 90s progressive stuff is notable and should be covered in the appropriate article(s), so it should be made clear which article covers which topic. Plus, I think with an entire history of progressive rock article to play around with, there will be less pressure for this article to explain every last little variety of prog. Tuf-Kat 20:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea. And a lot of work.
Here are the main divisions that I see. Is this unreasonable? Some of these already have pages, but these would all have to be referenced within some sort of index page. Or maybe a template?
(1) Psychedelic music
(2a) 1970's prog rock, main current (Crimson, Yes, ELP, etc.)
(2b) 1970's prog rock, Canterbury bands (Camel, Caravan, etc.)
(2c) 1970's prog rock, avant-garde and astringent bands (Henry Cow, etc.)
(2d) 1970's prog rock, European bands -- or should these not be separated by nationality?
(3) prog / jazz fusion (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Dixie Dregs)
(4) prog pop (ELO, Alan Parsons, later Kansas, later Renaissance)
(5a) 1980's post-prog bands (80's Crimson, Peter Gabriel)
(5b) 1980's commercialization of prog (Genesis, Tull, Asia) -- is this the same as 4?
(5c) 1980's prog revival (Marillion, etc.)
(6) 1990's prog revival continued (Spock's Beard, etc.) -- is this in the same category as 5c?
(7) progressive metal
(8) modern bands that are arguably prog (Radiohead, etc.)
[I retitled the current section because hopefully it will attract more attention that way.] Lawrence King 00:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need all that many articles. My advice is to keep it as simple as possible for as long as possible -- terms that are widely used with a clear meaning, like Canterbury Scene, should have an article; stuff like "1980s post-prog" probably doesn't need one. In other words, give progressive rock a tight focus, moving the chaff to history of progressive rock, letting that article grow until it gets really long or a particular section begins to overwhelm things, then make, as needed, articles like history of progressive rock: 1980s post-prog (since I doubt there is a whole lot to say about 80s post-prog beyond history and a few identifying characteristics -- that's not really a discrete genre in the same sense as the Canterbury Scene, I think, so it should be laid out as a part of "history" and not as a discrete genre in itself). I think a template is a great idea, as it can help keep things orderly and make it clear which article is on which precise topic.
I don't suggest making any new articles at this time, except for a history of progressive rock, possibly along with e.g. French progressive rock (this is a potentially thorny issue, as the history of progressive rock must be neutral and not focus unduly on American and British stuff -- the hypothetical French progressive rock article is not a ghetto to avoid going into the subject on the main article; also note that there is a French rock article, and I am not sure if we need to make more of a distinction than that at this time, it might better to put all kinds of French rock in that article until it becomes unwieldy). I'm not sure if these rambling comments make much sense, but maybe some others will come along with other thoughts. Tuf-Kat 01:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of redundant links on this page and I see that far from cutting down on them, someone has been actively adding more. There are at least five links to Yes including two in the same paragraph, three to King Crimson again including two in the same paragraph, five to ELP, even two to Bach, which once again are in the same paragraph! There doesn't need to be more than one, maybe two apiece, and definitely not within a paragraph or two of each other. Could someone deal with this? If not I might do it in the next few days when I have more time. PurplePlatypus 21:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett 21:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Gentle Giant in intro?

I'm not too sure about adding GG to the intro. They are important, but I don't think they belong on the same list as the other seven bands there. Commercial success is a factor, and there they probably rank close to King Crimson but miles behind the other six, but I also think the other seven (especially Crimson) are all probably more influential. Seems to me there are other 70s bands that are at least as important as GG (Van der Graaf Generator? Mahavishnu Orchestra? PFM who, I'm horrified to say, don't even have an article!) - where do you draw the line? PurplePlatypus 07:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually didn't add them based on commercial success (while they were pretty successful). I think GG is a great example of one extreme of prog rock and how extreme it can be. As I said, I think they were quite influential in the genre (Ian Anderson's favorite band at the time and Jethro Tull shows how he was influenced). Obviously I'm biased because I love GG, but I believe they're one of the more notable prog rocks bands, if only for their eclecticism. --Comics 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had a pretty good idea what your view would be :-). What I'd really like, though, is to hear from a couple of others on this topic. Personally I just don't think they compare to the other seven in influence, even if they were themselves a key influence on one of those seven (and I don't know enough about either Tull or GG to really say - I'm more of a Yes, Floyd and Crimso guy). Think of the above query as a highly informal RfC (in the originally intended sense, not what RfC seems to have turned into).
I should clarify that by mentioning commercial success, I wasn't trying to say that was the only reason you put them in; I was trying to say that wasn't the only reason I was suggesting removing them, a somewhat different point. Sorry if I was unclear about that. PurplePlatypus 19:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely right. They don't have nearly the scope and influence of bands like Yes, Rush, Pink Floyd (all of which I love). Personally I think they're the extreme example of progressive rock and how they blended classical and conventional instruments and musical conventions. Arguably, they are the most prog of all the prog rock bands. I could go either way, though, don't get me wrong. I'll still be able to sleep at night if someone wants to revert my addition.  :) --Comics 22:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll never find a better reason to remove Gentle Giant of the list than your own preferences in prog rock. I'm a Crimson guy too, but I couldn't deny Gentle Giant's unbeatable progressive quality. As some people say in his section, they are probably the most "progressive" rock band, and that's reason enough to keep Gentle Giant in the list of "major acts" in history of progressive rock. As for the commercial factor, you can't only consider success in the US. Besides, they have been more influential than many people think. In a Dream Theater footage you can find on youtube, Dream Theater's Mike Portnoy tells how Jordan Rudess is largely influenced by ELP and Gentle Giant. This influence is not oblique at all (you don't have to analyze any song to find out): in his 2007 solo album called "The Road Home", he covers ELP's "Tarkus" and GG's "Just The Same". It seems "he couldn't help it". Moreover, other relatively young bands such as Echolyn and Spock's Beard are just more examples of GG's influence. Even The Mars Volta, as they have declared themselves, fit in the list. quinceps 20:51, 06 December 2006 (UTC)

Kansas

The last thing we need, obviously, is another person wondering why his or her favorite band isn't included. But Kansas is (as with all prog histories) relagated to one of the second-generation, mid-70s, almost irrelevant prog acts.

So here's my thoughts on more prominent inclusion:

1) Kansas started *recording* in 1971. The early songs were intensly progressive and bewlildered midwest audiences. They are absolutely a first generation prog band. (This is a change I already made to the history.) Kansas, which tours and records today, still plays one of the songs recorded in 1971 ("Belexes").

http://www.cuneiformrecords.com/bandshtml/protokaw.html

2) Kansas is one of the top-selling prog acts of all time, with over 30 million albums to date.

3) In...I think it was 1980...Kansas was the #1 concert attraction in the world.

4) "Dust in the Wind" is one of the most famous acoustic guitar songs in all of rock, not just progressive rock. Homer Simpson sang "Dust in the Wind." Bill and Ted did. Will Ferrell in Old School. The current Subaru ad campaign. I could fill the page...

5) I'd argue the most well-known prog song of all time is "Carry on, Wayward Son." Thoughts?

6) MTV had several Kansas videos in rotation. They were all punishingly awful.

I have never understood why the prog elite doesn't give Kansas props. But I'll tell you, all those other artists listed do.

Bill

PS: I agree on Gentle Giant - hugely influential. Certainly more so than Kansas.

Bill, I'm not so sure I agree on all your points. I must say, to begin, that I'm not a big fan of Kansas and don't personally think they're actually especially prog if you compare to many of the other bands at the time. I would classify them more in the Classic Rock realm with maybe a few touches of prog here and there.
Secondly, I don't think they were part of the first wave. All the most prominent names in prog. had their roots in the mid to late 60s, around the time The Beatles were calling it quits. The first prog albums were released in the last year of the 60s and first of the 70s. I'm thinking of the first King Crimson, Yes, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, etc. albums. Kansas only released its first album in its current incarnation in 1974, and they were sort of coming in late in the game, in many ways. The height of their popularity was much later, as well. --Comics 18:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Bill, I don't dispute that Kansas deserves a reasonably prominent mention; some of their early stuff is more prog than Comics seems to be giving it credit for, and they were certainly one of the genre's most commercially successful acts. However, I don't think they fit the first wave for pretty much the same reasons Comics just gave, and I certainly don't think they're as influential as the other bands in that section. I've reverted the change (along with an unrelated edit by someone else that I just don't think was very good), and will put in a bit of a compromise momentarily. PurplePlatypus 04:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I agree that some of their earlier stuff was more on the prog side, but this is not what they're known for. All of their successful material really doesn't fit into the prog category, IMO. Kansas does deserve a mention, though. Comics 04:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm actually with bill on Carry On, Wayward Son qualifying as prog - in fact, it's proggier than a lot of other prog bands' best known songs (ELP - Lucky Man, Floyd - Money [7/4 time notwithstanding] / ABitW2, Yes - Owner, almost every Rush or Genesis song the average person has heard of...). About the only other major prog band with as representative a song among the ones that actually get airplay is Yes, with Roundabout. And there are tons of less well-known album tracks that are clearly prog. These are not on obscure albums, they're on the same albums as Carry On and Dust. PurplePlatypus 06:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a great song. I wouldn't say that Money is not a prog-ish song, though. It's definetly unconventional. Roundabout is probably the most popular true prog song ever. Lucky Man is not prog (though it's excellent). Comics 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your collective responses - this is my first experience with Wikipedia, and I am glad. To address the comments -- PurplePlatypus, in terms of influence, do you mean at the time, or over time? I agree that Kansas was not as influential to prog bands at the time. But for all the prog bands that came after, they have been hugely influential. Just ask any of the newer prog artists. Thank you for bringing up the songs other than Kansas's big hits. There are tons of very progressive songs on Kansas albums. They just weren't radio hits. A lot of people judge Kansas, but are not ulimately familiar with the material. -- Comics, I don't see how whether or not you like Kansas as having any bearing on this discussion. I can't stand Yes, but I have enormous respect for them. If you don't think the original Kansas was part of the first wave...well, perhaps I'm wrong. But I believe they are, as evidenced by the album recorded in 1971. If you haven't heard it, then what is the basis of your opinion? Is your definition of first-wave when a band was making music, or influencing other bands? Or fame? Outside of prog, no one has heard of King Crimson. Or ELP. And these days, the average person has not even heard of Yes. Which is a shame. But comparing the popularity of "Wayward Son" and "Roundabout" is...I dunno, man. I don't think anyone except a prog fan even remembers that song. Maybe I'm just showing my age. But "Wayward Son" is the only prog song to enter into the mainstream culture, and it still is, being used constantly to this day. It's even a popular ring tone on cell phones - I'm willing to bet the only prog tone. My biggest question for you, though, is what makes "Roundabout" proggier than "Wayward Son"? Please, be detailed!
I was citing my opinion, just for the sake of the discussion we were having. It has no impact on the article itself. Unless you can prove that Kansas received any popular attention before the mid-70s, then I don't think you have much of an argument. Sure there were probably a ton of underground and lesser-known bands in the 60s and 70s playing prog-style music, but by first wave we're talking about bands with a huge imapact and significance on prog itself as well as influence on other bands which followed. In the Court of the Crimson King broke barriers and caught everyone's eye in the late 60s. Kansas didn't really appear on the map until a good amount of time later in a significant form (unless you can prove otherwise). Most articles barely even mention Kansas before their 1974 album. It was minor. I won't get into debating Roudabout vs. Wayward Son. It's a matter of opinion and of no relevance here. Also, please sign posts with ~~~~ so that we know who you are. Comics 02:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This is my worst fears about Wikipedia realized. It's not so much an encyclopedia as a Star Trek convention where zealous fans argue over their favorite episodes. You didn't answer the points I raised. But that's because you don't have to. You'll just keep modding down any changes I make (or anyone else you don't agree with). Your stated metric for the greatness of a prog band is determined by...when they got popular? With whom? You? With the artists? If your metric is popular attention, then bands like ELP, King Crimson and Gentle Giant don't even belong here. And bands like Rush, Kansas and Yes which have outsold them a hundred times over are...the greatest prog bands? Please consider establishing an objective criteria for listing these bands in your history and stick to it - you know, one other than what you happen to think is cool for no particular reason. In writing these entries, you take on a responbility to the people who read them. Please take that responsibility more seriously. And if you're going to say something as astoundingly stupid as one song is "progier" than another, then be prepared to back that up with something other than, "Oh, well that's not important."
Look, Wikipedia is not the place for personal debates on ideas. What we're discussing here is whether or not Kansas deserves to be mentionned in the first wave. I did not say that importance was determined in terms of popularity, I said that the groups which were a part of the so-called first wave were what influenced and really started the prog rock movement amongst fans. I think that Kansas was a minor player in this for the comparative reasons I have stated above. You mention that your worst fears about Wikipedia have been realized because of fanboys. You implied in your first message that you were essentially a firm supporter of Kansas which is why you were pushing for them to be recognized as part of the first wave. Furthermore, you claim that I did not address any of your points, but you also fail to address or acknowledge what I said in response to you. There was a reason why I didn't get into a debate of Roundabout vs. Wayward. You're obviously new to Wikipedia, but you have to understand that this is not the place for such debates as it matters not in the context of the article. I actually think Wayward son is a great song, as I noted, but I don't believe that it's especially proggy, and is more in line with classic rock style material. Just to quickly state my point so that you don't argue I'm coping out again, I based the "more proggy" comment based exactly on the criteria defining prog rock in this article. "Use of unusual time signatures, scales, or tunings." Wayward Son is far more conventional in this area. "Prominent use of instruments unusual in rock music, including electronic instrumentation." There is some synth and piano in Wayward, but Wakeman takes all this a step further in Roundabout. Also, the pedals that Squire uses on his bass are pretty unique. "Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies." Anderson is a countertenor, to begin with. Also, his harmonies with Squire are often extremely unique in the way they're constructed. Wayward is more conventional, once again, with some standard backing vocals on the chorus. "Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives" again, Roundabout moreso. "Solo passages for virtually every instrument." There are several solos from varying instruments in Roundabout. Wayward does have a guitar solo and a shortish piano solo, though. "A coordination within the rhythm section of the band (typically consisting of the bassist and the drummer)" Well, Bruford/Squire are probably one of the best examples of countertempos in prog rock. Going completely against the rest of the band. Not so in Wayward. My argument is that Wayward has some prog elements, but I would suggest it's far more in line with classic rock. No doubt Kansas has some very prog material, but once again, they are not especially notable for it and sort were somewhat late in coming into the scene (other than the fact they were recording in 1971, which isn't really relevant. There were many bands recording that kind of music at the time, no doubt. Kansas should be put in the 2nd wave. --Comics 03:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I am concerned about the lack of meaningful, epistemological metrics here other than fandom. I remain convinced that your rationale for "important" prog bands is that if you don't already like it, then it's not good prog. Take your hilarious comparison of "Roundabout" to "Wayward Son". Your observations are detailed, dogmatic and demonstrate an astounding ignorance of the song you are denigrating. For example, "Wayward Son" has 3 guitar solos, not 1. And there's no piano solo. I can't fathom how you appointed yourself the ultimate master of progressive rock. Kansas was not especially notable for progressive rock? Wow. According to whom? Oh, right, according to you. Regardless, I will try to consider your opinions. After some thought, I will agree that Kansas should not be listed in the first wave. I also think it's important not position them as a result of it, though. Kerry Livgren was influenced by earlier bands like Procol Harum, not later ones like Yes. Bill Evans--209.30.84.149 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's blatantly untrue that Comics didn't use meaningful metrics, and it seems to me that the charge of substituting fandom for reasoned discussion is at least as applicable in the other direction. It also seems to me that you've accused Comics of using only fandom as a rationale, and admitted that he didn't, in virtually back to back sentences; you might want to give that a rethink. It's also simply not the case that he did anything that would reasonably be described as "denigrating" Carry On. Indeed, you seem to be sniping with very little provocation; nothing Comics has said strikes me as anywhere near as unreasonable as you've made it out to be, which is not to say I agree with all of it. PurplePlatypus 09:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a short snyth solo at 3:05. At this point I'm going to walk away from this. You appear to be doing exactly what you claim is wrong with my comments. This is exactly why I did not want to get into this debate regarding Roundabout vs. Wayward. It doesn't result in meaningful discussion. You are being as much of a fanboy in regards to Wayward as I am with Roundabout, the difference is that I admit it. However, we were discussing the merits of having Kansas listed as a first wave band, which I disagree with for all the reasons I have mentionned. As a new user you appear to be slightly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works and how consensus is achieved. I don't think I know everything about prog rock, but I was stating my irrelevant person opinion on two songs. At least we achieved consensus regarding the first wave, which is what really matters. Wikipedia is not a chat room. I thank PurplePlatypus for understanding what I was getting at. --Comics 15:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Kansas keeps being excluded. Rush's work is a lot popppier than Kansas, but it's allowed to remain. Next you're going to say Boston is an important prog band, but Kansas isn't.Scottandrewhutchins 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

It is a complete nonsense even to discuss whether a certain band should be included or excluded!

We can go to specialist Progressive Rock sites to explore the various bands of the genre - in an encyclopaedia article, we are concerned merely with defining what it is. There are a handful of well-known and slightly less well-known UK bands that are very widely recognised as initiating (and thus, defining) what Prog Rock is - and only those NEED to be mentioned at all.

Others should only be mentioned in connection with a specific and demonstrably important contribution to the genre IMHO.

MarkCertif1ed 09:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just joined this discussion, but at the risk of sounding ethnocentric, I would like to add this: Regardless of what you think about the popularity of Kansas and regardless of your opinion of some of their weaker elements in the Pop realm, Kansas was the first (and arguably the only) American progressive rock band during the progressive era. That is what makes them worth mentioning, not how many hits they had or even how popular they were. Of course I've probably now opened the door to an argument to include the only prog band from Mozambique or something. Just mention the fact that they were American and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolEnsLamb (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just did another fairly large cleanup of the Characteristics section; a lot of stuff seems to have been added since I last checked it that detracted from, rather than added to it. Some of it was just more of the usual accumulation of mostly unnecessary examples - I expect that someone, who will quite possibly continue to be me, will need to do that every month or two until the end of time, but oh well.

But more egregiously, some of the contributors of these bits - I haven't checked but I assume it was more than one person - didn't seem to pay much attention to the context they were adding their comments to. For example, in two different cases people listed something as an "exception" to a trend it was actually very much a part of. Someone listed highly allegorical Rush songs as though they were exceptions to the allegorical trend (Pink Floyd's The Final Cut would have been a much better example), and someone said ELO was an exception to the trend of not using actual orchestras by calling them a "mini-orchestra" (a description that could apply to any of a dozen other bands mentioned on the page - hardly a unique feature of ELO, quite aside from its poor fit to the context!).

This is a wiki and anyone can contribute as much stuff as they like, but please, you best serve your readers and fellow contributors by making sure it fits the context you're adding it to (and that it isn't just restating something that's already in the article, another problem I saw a bit of). PurplePlatypus 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed it when my friend was editing on my computer. I do think that there should be a variety of examples, but nothing overboard (I.E. listing half of Rush's catalogue when they only had a minor period of pure "Progressive Rock"). I also agree that Brain Salad Surgery is a solid example of the artistic movement in prog rock. Deckiller 23:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Tool?

Does Tool really belong in the same category as Genesis and Pink Floyd? A Perfect Circle, maybe--but Tool? I find that categorization hard to understand, especially in light of the Opiate EP. Their music is way too similar to metal. If anything, they would better qualify as Nu Metal, except for the lack of hip hop influence. But the heavy, rhythmic bass; the hard drums, the distorted guitar, the screaming, the loudness, the dark sound, the themes of abuse and disillusionment, and the fan base make them seem much more similar to Nu Metal than Progressive Rock.

All it says is that there is debate on whether they belong in the category (near the beginning), and that they have cited King Crimson as an influence. Both seem fine to me, though granted, the latter might best be moved to the Influences section rather than where it is now. Neither reference states outright that they are prog, and in face the first rather goes out of its way not to. PurplePlatypus 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
(And having said that - clearly Tool isn't much like Genesis or Floyd, but change your examples to King Crimson and Van der Graaf Generator and suddenly it's not so clear. Prog is a huge category that, as the article notes, doesn't have any universally present defining features and is routinely applied to bands that don't sound very much alike.) PurplePlatypus 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


hey hey what about the mars volta? they apply to almost all of the themes of prog rock except that theyre a modern band but theyre definately more prog than tool... just sayin is all

I'll defend Tool on this subject manner. Tool is more of a progressive rock band than many people give them credit for. Their sound is hidden under many of the things you discuss: the screaming, loudness, distorted guitar, etc... Though it's harder to find a progressive sound until their last album Lateralus, Aenima includes many progressive sounds. They have been categorized, much of the time, with bands in the nu-metal category, but... as Maynard has said about that, "I don't really see the connection. Because there is some intensity in some of our songs, I think these bands pick up the surface noise, and that's their influence." You should listen to Tool more and pick up on their sound. I know that Pink Floyd was considered very dark for their time... much like Tool. Their live shows definately add to the "progessive rock categorization," I mean... King Crimson even opened for them on tour, THE progressive rock band. willsy 7:38PM February 25, 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1vC8ubnkY

I would hardly call that prog. It sounds like their biggest influence outside heavy metal was Fine Young Cannibals. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick van der Linden dies January 22, 2006

Sad news from the Netherlands. This morning Rick van der Linden passed away at the age of 59 after battling the consequences of a massive stroke for two months. Rick was an influential member/arranger/composer and keyboardist of the Dutch progressive rock band Ekseption. Ekseption website: [2]. AvB ÷ talk 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

European

The article describes european prog as influenced by jazz fusion while american prog as influenced by rhythm and blues. but jazz comes from the u.s. someone comment please Lue3378 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. Classical music, European folklore music (Celtic, Slavic), etc. - That's the real "native" European influence on progressive rock. quinceps 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exclusively. It's dead easy to hear the influence of the UK pioneers (especially Genesis and Pink Floyd) in many early European (non-UK) Prog bands - e.g PFM's early albums are so clearly inspired by Genesis that discussion is almost unnecessary, and so many of the more psychedelic Krautrock bands virtually cover "Saucerful of Secrets" or "Set the Controls..." that it's beyond funny.

Jazz fusion was particularly influential on the "Canterbury" scene, of course - and it's evident in King Crimson and Genesis to a lesser extent. Psychedelia was as equally influential as rhythm and blues - early King Crimson are essentially a glorified hard/blues rock combo with a jazz influence, much like a psychedelic/garage band but with compositional structuring, and Pink Floyd were... Pink Floyd (both R&B and psychedlia combined, but again more tightly structured than a casual listen would belie).

I guess it depends on how European Prog is defined - can you be more specific?

MarkCertif1ed 13:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

21:13, 16 February 2006 141.150.215.100 (→Reviews)

+ * Gagliarchives South Jersey's Finest Progressive Rock 15 Years Running. Would that URL belong into "Reviews"? If I understand that webpage correctly, that is some prog streaming site, maybe that would deserve a seperate heading? --BNutzer 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Blood Brothers

I've listened to the Blood Brothers for a while in the past and I don't see a progressive sense in their music. Can someone inform me on why they're on the list, because their sound is more hardcore punk than anything. willsy 7:28PM, February 25, 2006

contemporary section needed

this article needs a section detailing contemporary prog bands. a few are listed under "influences"

Page cleanup

I'll copy/paste this note (made by User:PurplePlatypus as comment in the article source) here too, so it's also visible here:

A NOTE TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS

PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO ADD MORE EXAMPLES, ESPECIALLY TO THE LIST OF CONCEPT ALBUMS. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia article, not an attempt at an exhaustive list. Really, at this writing ( 22:02, 21 March 2006) there are still too many examples even after a pretty good paring down by Hipred; there is absolutely no need for more. Please make sure any additions you make add useful information to the article without making it read like a laundry list. Your favorite band does NOT need to be mentioned at every turn, though by all means add ONE reference somewhere if you think someone important has been overlooked. Thank you.

Anyway, I think User:Hriped cleaned up the article well. There is room for quite a few notable examples as illustrations, but indeed, not every band needs to be added. The traditional, notable, "big" bands illustrate the points well enough. For people who really want to spam their favorite bands, that's not what wikipedia is for, or you might find some lists on wikipedia that list some artists or albums --LimoWreck 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to wonder if the best solution might be rewrite the characteristics so as to eliminate the prog rock band examples that follow each one. I am not saying get rid of all examples everywhere, but I think that the place for examples is in the history section or in the actual articles on the bands and albums themselves. The only helpful reasons for having the examples is to clarify or prove the characteristics. As for the latter point, if the characteristics are accurate, then that point that should be proven in the history to begin with.
As for the point of examples somehow clarifying the characteristics, well, currently, the "Extremely wide dynamic range" characteristic and its explanation is succinct and unambiguous. It manages this quite well without citing any bands or pieces. Sure, we could add examples to it for the sake of having examples, but all that does is make the paragraph longer and invite a shopping list of every example a fan can think of.
Also, since progressive rock characteristics are not mutually exclusive, authenticity lies in showing how prog bands exhibit many of the characteristics at once. I think that we could avoid definition bloat if we took that into account, by listing relevant characteristics when we write about the bands rather than mentioning bands when we are listing the characteristics. Moroever, I think it strengthens this article if an album (or band) article explains how the album (or band) shows prog rock characteristics X Y and Z, and then cites Progressive rock as the authority, instead of the current trend of using this article as a place to namedrop a band to "prove" that it is prog.
Maybe I'm crazy to advocate for a clear, unadorned list of prog rock characteristics, but if I am, then thankfully the article on Schizophrenia is able to list each of its five symptoms without putting in 2-9 examples of each person's favorite schizoid man (or woman) after each one. ;-) --Hriped 05:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the problem is -as with any musical genre- , you can't really give a strict definition of the genre. As you said progressive rock characteristics are not mutually exclusive, but not all characteristics will be found in most bands, or you might find characteristics in bands that traditionally aren't categorized as prog, or you might find some entirely different characteristic in some prog bands, etc....... So, as I see it, I think giving some examples of the "traditional" well-known prog-bands is the best we can do to clarify the examples ... These are the bands that influenced most other prog artist anyway, and when new artists show some characteristics, these are mostly based on those "traditional" examples. So maybe it's best to include some examples to give a generenal image of the prog.rock scene (as is done now) ? Of course the characteristics should be discussed in articles on the band itself, but removing those examples completely here might make the general picture too "general", too "abstract" ... The examples you left now actually are what made prog.rock what is today and has been the past decades, so as long as they're notable and limited in number, they are important in showing what prog.rock is. But that's just how i see the thing ;-) --LimoWreck 13:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! What kiddies are rewriting history!

All I can say is there is barely any mention of The Moody Blues! It was their producer who discovered King Crimson (real history, lads) and thus also McDonald and Giles (who also lack mention), and most later acts, god love them. Listen again to "In the Court of the Crimson King" closely. Hear the Moody Blues' influence. If you can't, then you haven't listened closely (not that you really need too, it's that obvious.) I know this article reeks of falsehoods when the grand-daddy of prog rock is considered a bit player! I lived through this stuff, kids. I know it. Fix it! It's no wonder wikipedia is a laughing stock of information.

Further: Mars Volta gets a mention? Listen closely. They have Led Zeppelin to thank for their sound, not the Blues or Crimson. Use your ears. This whole article is slip-shod.

The Moody Blues first made big waves for "symphonic classicism"--in other words, classical arrangements that accompany rock, rather than rock that aspires to be classical. Around the start of prog, the MB's overt focus was on topics like transcendental meditation--similar to the Beatles and Beach Boys, who were also using elaborate-but-not-prog arrangements, at that time. As much as Crimson may have sounded like the MBs to some, the difference in approach and composition is as plain as "Cat Food" (too experimental for the MBs) and "Ride My See-Saw" (too straight-ahead rock for Crimso).
It is true that the MBs, the Nice, etc., predate prog rock. Consequently, what needs to be fixed is the Symphonic rock article, which a.) misleadingly focuses on later prog rock bands rather than the innovators of symphonic rock, and b.) treats symphonic rock as an offshoot of prog rock, when c.) symphonic rock (bands + orchestral arrangements) actually predates prog rock. --Hriped 04:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a little unfair to take bits and pieces from the Blues and Crimson, to say how different they are. These songs you mention were only parts of albums. They were never meant as singles. That is why both groups got very little radio time when I was growing up. Because both were album-oriented (and perhaps too experimental for radio). I want to say that I love both bands. Both deserve BIG kudos. Fans of one will be attracted to the other by virtue of their similarities, just as fans of, say, reggae, will be attracted to ska. Of course there are differences, otherwise I wouldn't be, or need to be, a fan of both.

I do see your point, and I have raised this in symphonic rock, where the Moody Blues aren't even mentioned! But that is my point. Both articles are giving little, to no credit, to the Moody Blues as a seminal band. Both from an empirical and chronological perspective, the Moody Blues influenced psychedelic, symphonic, AND progressive rock. (Back then, they were closer than you think. Almost synonymous. Musicologists and historians only began labelling and classifying these genres, in retrospect). This should be rectified to properly reflect this.

I admit to keeping the borders a bit blurry between symphonic and progressive rock , but that's how I, and many others (even TSO considers itself both prog and symphonic), grew up thinking of prog rock in the '60s and '70s: 1) Album-oriented, making some "progression" or journey through a, albeit loosely-weaved, story. 2) Musical complexity above and beyond other rock. Both the Blues and Crimson quack like ducks, and certainly swim in the same pond. And both belong equally to these articles. I lived through this time, was an original fan of both groups, and no amount of historical revision is going to change what I experienced first-hand.

I do appreciate your perspective, and I thank you for responding to me. Just don't give the Moody Blues such short-shrift in this article, is all I'm asking. It's not much. They're too important, historically, for that.

Oh, and I DO know my cat food. I have some connoisseurs at home. :) Be well.

No offense to fans, but note that The Moody Blues are not so much as mentioned in The Billboard Guide to Progressive Music, and the Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock says "very few would say that their music is progressive in the sense of Yes or Genesis." Gekritzl 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I hardly think that Billboard qualifies as an authority on Prog Rock (Progressive Music is something else, and the Moodies were certainly progressive, beyond any doubt). The GEPR is incorrect - for the time, their music was easily as progressive as either Yes or Genesis. Listen to what the Moodies were doing in 1969 and compare it to what those other luminaries were doing. That's gotta make you think! MarkCertif1ed 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Punk vs Progressive

This article says that punk music of the 70s led to progressive's downfall. Is there any proof for this, any verifiable written source, or is this people passing on popular opinion today? From what I understand, punk remained an underground phenomenon for a long time, and progressive acts were still successful into the 80s. I don't know if this is good as a source, but this is what makes me wonder: an interview on the Mark Prindle review page: http://www.markprindle.com/unterberger-i.htm (It's the answer to the second question.) I would appreciate any info about this.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea that punk destroyed prog is indeed a popular myth. Nothing destroyed prog. Prog just evolved into something different. Actually it evolved into a lot of different things.
The prog acts of the late 70’s and early 80’s were doing just what prog acts had always done. They were gathering influences from all the other music around them and incorporating it into their own music to keep prog ever progressive and new. But when prog bands started incorporating elements of punk and new wave, prog evolved to such a point that there was a division among prog fans.
Some prog fans could not adjust to the new era of more mechanical, futuristic progressive rock that was being played on progressive rock stations. Hence the myth that punk or other forms of music killed prog. If anything, these things sustained prog and took it to its next phase. But those who wanted a return to the more organic sound of early prog split off from the main progressive movement. Thus you had the main progressive movement, represented by progressive radio stations, and a certain faction of fans who were all about making prog into a stationary genre for bands like Marillion and Pendragon.
The actual progressive rock movement may still be very much alive and still evolving in the underground of today’s music, but you would never recognize it if you heard it. While the genre of prog, which is a different musical theory, never got killed. Rather it got born in rebellion against punk and new wave influences in an attempt to preserve the old sounds.
I know this from actually being there and witnessing the evolution and split. Unfortunately, you can’t sight what you heard on the radio nearly 30 years ago as a reference. While you can sight an infinite number of prog articles written by people who either weren’t there or didn’t know jack about prog, since it was never popular with the mainstream press. Thus most of the articles that exist perpetuate these myths, and under Wikipedia’s rules I don’t know what you can do about it.
It would be nice if you could sight the music itself as a reference. Good albums to try would be Split Enz “Time and Tide” 1982, King Crimson's "Discipline" 1981, Flash & The Pan’s “Lights in the Night” 1980, Godley & Crème’s “L” 1978 and even The Tubes self-titled album from 1975 to see that prog was absorbing the surrounding music and evolving into something that sounded nothing like classic era Genesis or Yes.
The music itself speaks volumes about what actually happened back then. But that’s a bit beyond the ability of a written encyclopedia. It would have to be demonstrated on an external site and linked to the article. Perri Rhoades 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Rewrote this section as its was just wrong. Punk did not destroy prog, prog was more sucessful then ever, taking album sales and tours, during the punk period and also the influence of prog on new wave bands (we constantly here about how prog bands like Rush absorbed new wave influences but what about the other way around?) shows prog survived better than punk , the article I reffed backs this up. I removed the Martin Smith quote because, well who is he? Is it the bass player from ELO? If it is so what? It could be used to show the misinterpertation of the suituation that is constantly trotted out I guess. Prog progressed, punk didn't although some punks did. Punk's not dead? Yes it is and prog is alive and kicking 30 years after the obituaries were written--KaptKos 08:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not about who killed who. Prog isn't dead, put Punk rock's not dead at all too. It's about the genres that get attention in the media, on tv and/or radio, and by the general public. Prog had it's best days during the 70s... They did have massive following next decades, but they weren't the dominating genre... Punk still exists, prog rock does, metal exists; but they don't shape the musical landscape nowadays. Stop thinking black/white, genre xx vs genre yy... --LimoWreck 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point and my point is that media attention has absolutly nothing to do with it its what the music listening public pay attention to that counts, the media started the misconception that punk killed prog and the music listening public ignored them in their millions and still bought prog records and went to prog gigs and the vast, and I mean vast, majority of the music listening public didn't buy punk records or goto punk gigs (they didn't buy or see prog either (Disco anyone?) but thats beside the point). But despite this this misconception is still, to this day, trotted out like its recieved wisdom, as in this article until now, and its just plane wrong as evidenced by the contined development of prog (Mars Volta ,Radiohead,Muse,Dream Theatre,Sigur Rós,Tool and on and on) compared with punk (Greenday?) And metal dosn't shape the musical landscape? Metallica are one of the biggest bands on the planet and have been for the last 15 years, I think metal shapes the musical landscape as much as any other genre. The black and white view was the one I removed from the article and backed up my take on things with references which I might add this article is, otherwise, completely lacking in--KaptKos 09:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you're missing the point completely, nice WP:POV --LimoWreck 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be glib, what point exactly am I missing? How is it POV to remove unsourced material and replace it with sourced detail? Or are you talking about my comments above which are an explaination of my changes not justification, which is the source? --KaptKos 06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't confuse sources with POV/NPOV. It's not because this source says something, it is NPOV and can be added to the relevant article... --LimoWreck 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But of course you can't be accused of this after your last edit? The source I used uses emperical evidence, album sales, the web cite you are using is pure POV, (no need for boldface). So critical opinion in England determines which genre is at the forefront of rock? Hmm, didn't realise its so, how can I say it? Black and white? --KaptKos 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold sentences

I removed bold sentences from the characteristics section, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, as it should be reserved, within the article text, only of sub-entries (i.e., in a city article, relevant monuments which have no separate entries; names of characters in a comic book series, etc.). Attilios


Rewrite

Strange rewrite... The original section wasn't that bad; some changes seemed OK, but some statements seemed overdone, which off course results in their removal... Maybe try a less radical rewrite ? --LimoWreck 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, my idea was just to rewrite the info that was already there so that it read better. I didn’t venture to take out anything, even though I knew it was a bit much. Apparently by making it more clear what was being said some things promptly got zapped. And I heartily approve. I like the zapped version. Now if only someone would look at the "Characteristics of progressive rock" section and give it a good culling down to Wikipedia standards. Perri Rhoades 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
that's sometimes the problem when rewriting for better readability... we tend to state things a bit too clear, so they're a bit exagerated ;-) --LimoWreck 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't Forget about Queen

With songs like Bohemian Rhapsody and March of the Black Queen, these guys hae also made a mark in the genre with their own creative style. I had to add their name into one of the lists present in the article I hope no one doesn't mind. 70.48.75.159 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If they're not going to accept Kansas on the main list, they're certainly not going to accept Queen. Scottandrewhutchins 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

Queen is not a traditional prog rock band, add them in the seperate article List of progressive rock musicians if you like; however, this short list is limited to the few traditional prog rock names. This article is already bloated by redundant irrelevant names --LimoWreck 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thats fine by me but you don't have to give me a warning about vandelism since I said what I did on here and its only one word. 70.48.75.159 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that, I saw this talk page too late... lots of people try to spam their favorite bands in different music related articles, both well-known bands as hobby bands; so those were a natural reaction (one gets really tired by it sometimes)... I'll remove those warnings ;-) --LimoWreck 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen produced some Progressive Rock by any definition - at least 3 albums of it by my reckoning - but they are not famous for being a Progressive Rock outfit, and 3 albums is a tiny part of their output. They are hardly representitive of the genre. ProgArchives lists them as "Prog-Related", and that will do nicely. You can go there to explore their back catalog, and any number of Queen sites to get a flavour of how they are perceived more generally. This article needs lists like it needs a section on Mariah Carey. MarkCertif1ed 13:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I have a major problem with Queen being mentionned on the same line than Genesis and King Crimson as examples of 1970's prog rock bands. I propose that it is removed. --Childhood's End 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When did ProgRock Begin?

I would argue for the inclusion of The Nice as an early band in the progrock genre. Then there is Camel, and how many others have escaped mention? What about MagnaCarta? William R. Buckley 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keith Emerson was a member of The Nice, their style is typical progrock, what are your doubts about? --Doktor Who 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not express any doubts. I expressed an expectation. I was listening to The Nice in the mid-1970s (i.e. 1975), and well know that their music is typical of progrock. So, why are then not listed among the groups that define the genre? The fourth paragraph of the article mentions Jethro Tull, etc, as being genre-defining groups, and these came to be long after The Nice were no longer together. Neither is MagnaCarta mentioned, though they originated in the mid-1960s. My point is that progrock started well before 1970. William R. Buckley 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Blues Magoos' pieces like "Pipe Dream" and "Love Seems Doomed" (both 1967) are stellar examples of proto-prog: frantic tempo changes, quirky vocals and quasi-classical phrasing in places. The lyrical content is more in tune with the psychedelia of the day, but the songs themselves would prick up the ears of many a prog fan. I don't think they could be included as an early prog rock band, but some of their material may merit that designation. Twalls 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Prog Rock evolved out of the various popular music scenes of the mid-late 1960s - it's evident in the music.

The roll-call is too long to list in its entirity, but the Byrds, the Beatles, the Doors, the Nice, the Pink Floyd and the Moody Blues are all key players in its development. Although none produced bona-fide Prog Rock albums at the time, all laid down some of the foundations.

You'd need an article to explain this properly... :0)

MarkCertif1ed 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree that this needs a separate article to do it justice. The origins of 'progressive' are very hazy indeed - I would argue that you could go back to the huge success of Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" single in the early 60s; as a 'difficult' piece in 5/4 time, it was nevertheless very popular with the listening public. I would also suggest that the boundaries between 'psychedelia' and 'progressive' are not at all clear-cut. For example, Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" is usually held up as defining the psychedelic era, and yet look at it more closely: it's keyboard driven, it borrows from classical sources, its lyrics are impenetrable and open to wide range of interpretations; in all these senses, it conforms more closely to what later became defined as 'prog'. And then of course, we cannot forget The Beatles, who almost single-handedly 'progressed' pop music into rock, and in very experimental ways ("Tomorrow Never Knows", "Eleanor Rigby", "A Day In The Life", "I Am The Walrus", "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" - each of which could be argued kicked off an entire sub-genre of prog in later years). The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of constant evolution and progression in rock music, when different fusions were being tried; some were successful and survived (e.g. what became 'prog', 'metal'), others fell by the wayside, for example the attempted fusion between rock and classical music in the late 1960s. All that can be said is that there is no particular and recognisable date, event, or band, that defines the origin of 'prog rock'.

88.110.163.132 08:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ambient noise

In the following sentence:

The Mars Volta make heavy use of ambient noise on their album Frances the Mute.

ambient noise redirects to ambient noise level. So, can we fix this without starting an edit war? There are a few articles relevant to background music, noise, ambient music and so on, let's discuss which is the most appropriate.--Doktor Who 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for inclusivity

I recently discovered the genre of Prog Rock though I have been a prog rock person for about 30 years. I find it very difficult to know how to include or reject an artist from this cathegory. I could find even artists like Neil Young included with some of his pieces. Could someone name a single band or two who epitomizes this genre? Would it be someone like Pink Floyd or King Crimson and so that others would be measured by how much they depart from their model, similar to how one pomeranian differs from the ideal at a dog show? Progress is such a subjective word and genres are a kind of fixed classification; it is almost an oxymoron. It sort of makes the music to the moniker a moving target, yet I know what you mean. My current bitter sweet affection is toward Porcupine tree as well as unearthing Robert Fripp. There is something about this music that differentiates people. Some people vibrate to the surreal while others can only stand on simple reality. IAMIS 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, imho, we need music genres and styles in order to use less words when we are dealing with and describing such huge numbers of musical works and musical forms; we need words to say that the artist x is similar to artist y, that guitarist a sounds different from guitarist b, and so on; such words are meant to inform-educate-teach, they are not meant to pigeonhole for snobism or hate. I would argue that the term subgenre almost means nothing, we just need a little number of words related to genres and a larger number of words to describe styles, techniques and feelings.--Doktor Who 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with using genres. It is in the concept of a genre being "progressive" that confuses me. Can it progress or evolve to where it no longer resembles what it once was? Is it then split? Or maybe there could be a better descriptive to fix the style in place. There must be something else it has in common. If not then maybe it is only possessing an illusion of being progressive. In some ways "surreal rock" could fit as to me much of it is to ordinary rock as a Salvador Dali painting is to a still life painting.

We're not here to invent new terminology (see numerous Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:NAME, WP:V and WP:NOR). As the article itself notes, "Progressive rock" is the established name for a certain more or less well-defined genre of music whether or not one thinks the term "progressive" is strictly accurate. There is no question in my mind it is the correct name for this article; calling it anything else would go against both the letter and spirit of at least one of the above policies.
As to whether it can "progress" to the point where it is no longer recognizable, again, the article already notes that this is both possible in theory and may have in fact happened in practice (for example, to King Crimson). PurplePlatypus 05:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It was fashionable to label music as progressive - Progressive Blues compliations were 10 a penny. Progressive Jazz had come and gone in the late 1940s-early 1950s. It was only a matter of time before Progressive Rock came into being. As for how it progresses (or doesn't!) in a literal sense, that's all in the music - as I've tried to indicate through my revamp of the Typical Characteristics.

MarkCertif1ed 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Characteristics section

I violently disagree with the restoration of the bloated monstrosity that was the old Characteristics section. Far from being "useless" or "not saying anything", the version I stripped it down to contains the same information with far less non-contributing, pointless verbiage, and the advantage of being able to actually find it. Most of the points made in the version that has just been restored are perfectly clear after a single sentence; the further elaboration and especially the bloated, fanwanky lists of examples contributes absolutely nothing.

Or such is my view, anyway. What do others think? What does all that extra verbiage actually add to the article that my version lacked? What important information that is worth all the extra length did I remove? I submit that the answers are "nothing" and "none", but if anyone sees a good reason to keep the old format, I am willing to give them a hearing. PurplePlatypus 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I really agree that the reduced section is really unreadable. Is this an encyclopedia, or just a shortlist ? An article has to contain text, explaining things; it shouldn't be a mere summary of some things. This article doesn't clarify anything anymore; it doesn't give a good feel of the characteristics, nor doesn't it shows how each characteristic is more or less relevant in the genre. The redundant crap had been removed from the previous version, and that version really was worth reading and informative. --LimoWreck 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not disputing exactly, but merely asking for clarification - could you give a specific example of useful information in the long version but not in mine? Because it's the long version I find "unreadable". It's impossible to retain it, and I don't agree that the old version makes relative importance clearer (quite the opposite; there is a lot of pointless trivia in it). PurplePlatypus 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Eg, the short version:
  • Unusually intricate melodies and harmonies for popular music.
  • Long compositions, sometimes running over 20 minutes.
    • long compositions? What's special about them. Are those 20min long monotonous dance tracks ? Show a few typical examples (not many) to give me an idea or directions
  • Pieces made up of shorter parts that in some cases could be songs in their own right, similar to the use of movements in classical suites.
    • some typical examples are nice, just explain it a little
  • Use of unusual time signatures, rhythmic techniques, scales, or tunings.
  • Virtuoso solos, often lengthy, and sometimes for instruments that are seldom spotlighted this way in other styles of music.
  • An extremely wide dynamic range.
    • what is this short phrase about?
  • Prominent use of instruments unusual in rock music, and/or unusual vocal styles.
    • what's so unusual? Flute is something remarkable indeed, and electronica and the relation with electronic music too
  • Musique concrète, that is, the use of sound effects in compositions.
  • Inclusion of classical pieces on albums.
  • Highly literate and/or utterly opaque lyrics, which concern "serious" themes like war and religion far more often than typical pop themes such as sex and dancing.
    • listing some of the topics is more clear than just mentioning it's serious. What are serious lyrics ? Are you going to lyrically compare them to Jimi Hendrix or punk bands later on, they seriosly protested against war, right ?
  • Concept albums, sometimes also called "rock operas", in which a theme is explored throughout an entire album. Some such albums have an outright plot; most such storylines are either psychological dramas, or science fiction or fantasy tales.
    • show me some archetypes
  • No assumption that every piece must have lyrics at all; instrumentals are much more common than in other forms of rock or popular music.
      • by the way, I appreciate the idea of trying to keep this article "under control"; but I really think this version of the article does try to bring some nuances, without containing too much baloney. It is essential however not to include new redundant examples of people adding their pet progrock band, as having more than two (sometimes try when trying to differentiate a little) is completely unnecessary indeed... --LimoWreck 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I must tell that I am not entitled to talk here, becouse I never read such articles (music genres) from the beginning to the end, unless the article is very short. Sometimes I try, but suddenly a strong headache stops me. I believe that my humble duty is to come here from to time to time in order to check and fix inconsistencies or wrong info regarding physics of - technology for - electronics in music, as I did in analog synthesizer, but my favorite activity is to write about artists and their discographies. So, sometimes I think that this article and similar ones are too short, sometimes too long;
in this case actually there are some rebundant or wrong info in that section, but I'm not so bold to come here and edit, not for now, sorry. If we are going to split in a separate article this section, I will be happy to give my aid. --Doktor Who 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, what is electronica mentioned above by LimoWreck? Do you mean electronics and relevant techniques applied in music?--Doktor Who 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Some responses to individual points made by Limowreck:

  • Long compositions, sometimes running over 20 minutes.
    • long compositions? What's special about them. Are those 20min long monotonous dance tracks ? Show a few typical examples (not many) to give me an idea or directions
Do the examples actually make it any clearer, though? Notice that the version you reverted to didn't actually contain any more information other than examples than mine - less, as a matter of fact. And the examples only help someone understand this point if someone is already familiar with them, in which case they don't need the article. Also, as far as "what's special about them", that's well covered in the other points, which pretty much rule out "20min long monotonous dance tracks". People are not going to read each individual bullet point in a vacuum. (Whereas they might very well read each lengthy paragraph in the previous version that way!)
  • Pieces made up of shorter parts that in some cases could be songs in their own right, similar to the use of movements in classical suites.
    • some typical examples are nice, just explain it a little
What needs explaining? What about this isn't clear from the single sentence I've given? I'm not saying my word choices can't be improved upon (I'm very unhappy with some of them, as a matter of fact) but in this case the point seems to be totally clear without any further elaboration needed.
  • An extremely wide dynamic range.
    • what is this short phrase about?
That's what the wikilink is for. If that isn't enough, one could always add a short explanatory note just like I did for the sound effects point. Like I said, I'm not saying every decision in my version was perfect, I'm just defending the general direction I took.
  • Prominent use of instruments unusual in rock music, and/or unusual vocal styles.
    • what's so unusual? Flute is something remarkable indeed, and electronica and the relation with electronic music too
Actually, the electronica point has always bothered me, because I don't see that connection at all. Certainly I thought it recieved too much emphasis in the previous version of the article. Having said that, I agree that mentioning the flute specifically might strengthen this point, along with a similar summary, if it can be done in just a few words, of Gentle Giant's approach to vocals. (Note that I was the one who added both these points to the previous version of the article! You don't need to tell me they're significant.)
  • Concept albums, sometimes also called "rock operas", in which a theme is explored throughout an entire album. Some such albums have an outright plot; most such storylines are either psychological dramas, or science fiction or fantasy tales.
    • show me some archetypes
Yeah, this is one I actually kind of agree with. This could be split into a couple of slightly more detailed points and it would probably be to the article's benefit. (This is also the home of some of those word choices of mine that I didn't care for.)
  • (Overall point about explanations and examples)
I'm not certain the previous version had the explanations you're attributing to it, except of fairly trivial points that distract from, rather than contribute to, getting the "big picture". (I'm actually guilty of adding some of them, like the stuff about Larks Tongues and the AA suite.) Examples, yes - it still has far too many, in fact. And what exactly do the points about political commentary and exchanging members contribute? Despite having contributed a bit of text to both, I've never really liked either of them. At the very least, those should be removed or severerly cut back. PurplePlatypus 21:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I sometimes have the feeling some points are too verbose, others may be too short. The problem with musical genres is you can't really summarize things in a few words... you can't summarize it in a short list... and indeed, those more extended characteristics will have simplifications and shortcomings too. Progrock may be a loose, wide genre... Besides the traditional Genesis, Crimson, Yes,... people may place krautrock, the RIO-movement, early electronic artists, Magma's Zeuhl, Ian Carr and Nucleus' jazz-fusion,... under the krautrock "umbrella". A little more extensive explanation may try to bring some nuances, or give an indication about the importance of the point or show some typical examples; it should avoid giving the impression that the genre can be strictly definied as a number of well-defined typical characterstics. Instead of just a short summarization, many people like some "examples" of illustrations with an encyclopedia article, and some occasional trivia. The "political song" section in the article seems strange too, but well, as long as it was in such a short form ;-) It is a difficult exercise indeed to find a balance between clarity, avoid bloat and more extensive phrasing and clarification... I have seen versions of musical (sub)genre articles (mostly in another language wikipedia) that were merely an short introduction and a list of characteristics and bands; and to be honest, I didn't really "feel" what the genre was about by just seeing anything reduced to a theoretical general list ;-)--LimoWreck 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Characteristics section can have meaningful examples without being verbose. One-line 'characteristics' may very well be clear, but examples make them tangible - a key difference. The ones there are good, but several can be chopped in the interest of readability and the language can be streamlined in each. Twalls 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Limo, but one thing I think we can admit is that prog rock is a genre that naturally lends itself to verbosity and overcomplexity. :) Twalls

Even on talk pages ;-) Well, I think your "streamlining" was +/- OK. Something PurplePlatypus might hopefully like too. At least some of the more redundant examples are removed, but some typical "illustrations" are left. Regards --LimoWreck 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Yes, it could stand some more competent and thorough streamlining. I didn't fully understand the point about the use of orchestras - the original author seemed to be saying that it was rare for prog rockers to use orchestras, so I think that might qualify as a negative attribute - making itself unnecesary. Tot straks, Twalls 03:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The orchestra/choir stuff was originally added by me, replacing something that was in the article even earlier that implied that they were common, which certainly wasn't true (at least in the 70s). I probably replaced / elaborated it rather than simply deleting it to minimize the number of people I'd piss off, rather than because I generally thought it belonged in the article. (I've gotten BOLDer since then, as the events of this afternoon illustrate :-). Feel free to zap it. PurplePlatypus 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the history. It's not a bad point. We may just want to move it down to the end or zap it and work it in somewhere else. In contrast, many non-Prog classic rock acts and artists during the "Baroque pop" era (Left banke, Merry go Round etc) actually did/do use choirs/orchestras in places. Twalls 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why a link to French progressive rock has been removed and a link to Italian prog can stay here?--Doktor Who 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

At first glance:
  • the Italian prog site is dedicated to the italian progressive music of the 70's , a specific phenomen which is discussed in the article: The prog rock scene in italy: italian language, italian bands.
  • AmarokProg, in french, is just another general progrock site, Tout sur le Rock Progressif. Nothing that special, just a collection of the wellkown international bands. There already are way too may progrock review sites linked by the way --LimoWreck 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time to check again right now, but I am sure that on a site named The Gibraltar encyclopedia of progressive rock as well as on progarchives.com you can easily find some further interesting groups belonging to European and also American (not US) regional scenes that don't seem to be mentioned here.--Doktor Who 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
GEPR has indeed lots of them, and is generally seen as one of the biggest references, yes. That's why the link is at the bottom of the article ;-) --LimoWreck 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd?

Is it really undisputed that Pink Floyd is a Prog Rock band? Shouldn't they be along with Frank Zappa and The Moody Blues as a band that there is some controversy about? Many prog fans reject them altogether as a prog band because of their lack of virtuosity in comparison to most other bands that are characterized as progressive rock. Does anyone agree with me?

doesn't matter; WP isn't a vehicle for spreading personal opinions. They are frequently and traditionally qualified as prog band, so they're included here as well. --LimoWreck 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The Moody Blues were never regarded as prog-rock because they were too middle-of-the-road -- 1970s teenagers could discover that their parents liked them, so they were definitely uncool. Frank Zappa isn't prog-rock, because of the central, bitter humour that consumes much of his work. Prog-rock was always earnest, or so it seemed to its teenage followers. FZ didn't seem earnest. Arguably 'Hot Rats' is prog-rock, but an artist cannot be considered prog if he released 40+ other albums that weren't prog-rock. As for virtuosity, Pink Floyd were just as skilled as most of Yes and King Crimson, possibly excepting Howe and Wakeman. Personally, I don't regard actual virtuosity as a qualification for prog-rock; so long as the musician seemed to his audience to have high aspirations and to be capable of playing whatever he wanted, that was good enough for us fans! Gavin Wilson 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no central, bitter humor in ELP? I beg to differ. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the "humour" thing about Zappa. Quite a musician, his tongue is almost always in his cheek. For what it's worth, note what Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock says: "There's little point in denying that Zappa is progressive: from the outset his albums transcended the norms of music, and at the same time made fun of them too." Gekritzl 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could throw in that I am, too, uncertain that Pink Floyd was a truly progressive rock band (psychedelic, perhaps), but as another editor here noted, they're widely considered progressive so I guess WP must reflect that rather than our personal opinions. --Childhood's End 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelic? - only early in their history. Their first few albums are definitely psychedelic and not Prog, but they went Prog after Sid Barret left. They were Prog during their peak, certainly (in my opinion, of course). I agree that other bands such as King Crimson and Yes are more closely grouped together but PF still share many traits with them, such as instruments, experimentation, irregular time signatures, unconventional harmonies, drama, pretentiousness, ostentatiousness etc. They have/had, I would say, a slightly mellower and chilled-out style. Sort of watered down Prog. This made them a little more accessible to the mainstream than other Prog bands. So still prog, I would say.

However It is true that there are Die-hard Prog fans who don't include them in their album collection which is interesting given they're the biggest 'Prog' Band. Not sure that this means they should be omitted - a lot of dedicated followers of more diverse styles might often reject the more mainstream option.TheJoff 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Helium and Mary Timony?

How about it? Prog or not?

Doens't matter. Not relevant --LimoWreck 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Groups that belong to the genre.

This subject is the place to list bands that should be listed.

I vote for the inclusion of Ozric Tentacles into the ProgRock article. While OT incorporates much from other genres, they clearly have a prog orientation. This comes out clearly in their (latest ?) release, "The Floors Too Far Away." William R. Buckley 18:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can add them to the list of prog bands page, but not here. They're not a well known or key band in the movement. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that many prog bands exist, and that it is probably a bad idea to include every example within the body of article text. My primary point is to provide an example demonstrating that prog is alive and well in 2006. William R. Buckley 10:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're actually right that the article doesn't demonstrate that. The contemporary bands mentioned are mostly either prog-metal or only "influenced" by prog. Narssarssuaq 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want lists of Prog Rock bands, go to a Prog Rock fansite like GEPR or ProgArchives :o)

MarkCertif1ed 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All the talk about "complex song structures"

...needs to be more descriptive. The article glosses over what ultimately makes a progressive song progressive: linear songwriting (as opposed to verse-chorus, cyclical, narrative, etc). I mean, look at the word. Line. Straight. Moving in a straight line. From one part to another, no cycling back. Progressing from one part to the next. Simply saying the structures are "complex" quite frankly doesn't cut it. Ours18 06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I don't think prog is necessarily "complex" in song structure. Especially in the cases in which the music tends to move in a straight line, the structure is not really complex: "A, B, C, D, etc..." Certainly, the structure has many themes quite different one from another, but the structure isn't likely to be solid, mainly because it doesn't have at least one idea which is somehow present during all the piece (listen to Focus's masterpiece "Eruption" and compare it in structure with Dvorak's "From The New World" Symphony). So prog rock's main features don't include complexity in structure. quinceps 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it could be rephrased. If there is a better term somewhere out there. Narssarssuaq 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is important - I'm working on it... :o) MarkCertif1ed 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of sound effects in compositions, otherwise known as Musique concrète

Are we sure this is used significantly more in prog than in other music? Narssarssuaq 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No - and sound effects aren't necessarily known as Musique concrète. The entire page is in need of a re-write by someone who knows a little bit about music.

Since I only know a little bit, I volunteer... :o)

MarkCertif1ed 13:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus

They don't mention dutch progressive rock band Focus at all. I'm talking about one of the few 70's rock bands still active in the 2000s (Focus 8 was released in 2003 and Focus 9, their last album has been released recently). Although this band wasn't as popular in North America as Pink Floyd, Yes or KC, there are Focus's works in the seventies, such as Eruption, Hocus Pocus, Sylvia and House of the King, Harem Scarem, etc. which are very important in the history of Prog Rock, because of their originality (like Jethro Tull, Yes, Gentle Giant, etc. the band was recognized for its unique sound). Thijs Van Leer's yodelling has not equal in rock, not to mention that Pierre Van Der Linden's style at drums was very influent.

I'm not giving further details because there's no room for lots of data concerning just one band in this article, but I'm just reminding you about this facts - I don't know exactly where we should put the information, though. Quinceps 06 December 2006 20:54 (UTC)

Snobby

The opening paragraphs of this article are incredibly snobby as they currently stand. Major rewriting is required if this article is ever to aspire to encylopedic standards. Sorry, just felt I had to say that... quercus robur 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out more precisely what you dislike? I don't see a lot of problems, most of it seems NPOV. Narssarssuaq 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I decided to actually edit out the bits I was unhappy with rather than just complaining about it, go back in the edit history a bit and you'll see what I meant, all that stuff about fans of progresive rock music being serious listeners who are a cut above people who listen to mere pop music!!! I should have just jumped in and edited boldly from the start rather than moaning and complaining on the talk page, but had been imbibing a few fine ales which no doubt affected my critical reasoning!!! quercus robur 09:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's much better - thanks! However, the sentence "Progressive rock acts often combine elements of jazz and classical music,folk and world music influences with rock formats." doesn't work quite well as a one-sentence abstract of what it's all about. Narssarssuaq 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear.Its back to how it was, including stripping out requests for citations that I added. Well I'm not getting into an edit war over it, hence I'll stick a cleanup tag on, someone else can sort it out. quercus robur 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Quercusrobur was right. Some bits are very snobby. It's unfair the fact that his/her edition somehow was "undid". There are some very popular bands classified as prog rock (e. g. Dream Theater, LTE, etc) which attracts a kind of audience not quite different from Commercial Pop & Rock fans. Yet we must consider that some progressive rock acts, such as Gentle Giant and KC's music actually may be appreciated by some serious listeners. quinceps 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverted back to quercus robur's version, as there seems to be some concensus in favour of that. Still, we should add a few (better) sentences on what prog really is about at the very top. Narssarssuaq 04:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Prog Rock is snobby - and why not ;o)

It has allusions to the highest forms of music, so there is bound to be some "snobiness" among its fans. That's not to say we're all snobs - it's just that many of us don't care if we have that label or not, since there is much in the music to be "snobbish" about!

MarkCertif1ed 09:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I added this phrase to the opening paragraph:

"As such, progressive rock can be seen as an approach to songwriting as well as a genre of its own."

I felt it would be neccesary to mention this in the opening paragraph, since it helps reinforce the idea that bands can be considered "progressive" while playing music in other established genres, like Tool who write progressive songs in the nu metal genre. Is this OK?

User:PearlTheater 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's spot-on. Narssarssuaq 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea.

Progressive as an adjective is different to Progressive Rock as a Noun.

Some of ABBA's arrangements are progressive - listen to the Suite that closes "ABBA - The Album".

Are you postulating that ABBA may be considered progressive in the same way that King Crimson may?

Didn't think so!

MarkCertif1ed 13:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Krautrock

This page needs a separate section on krautrock. The german scene is a key part of the history and development of progressive rock.

86.142.34.226 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a separate page on Krautrock for that exact reason. That and the fact that Krautrock is as different as Amon Duul, Kraftwerk, Can, Faust, Guru Guru... :o) MarkCertif1ed 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Update discussion

Hi

Please allow me to introduce... myself...

I'm Certif1ed, noted for exceptionally long and tedious reviews of Progressive Rock on the site http://www.Progarchives.com - and equally long and tedious forum replies packed with a plethora of musical ramblings and rants.

I also write music - but enough of this over-glorified self-promotion - anyone would think I was into Progressive Rock or something...


On to the article - the reason for this talk post:

Enlighten me, please - what's dubious about the phrase;

"Another common structural feature lies in extended instrumental passages that are part composed, part improvised, giving the form strong links to both jazz and classical music"?

The way I've phrased it?

Does it need fleshing out a bit more?


Maybe I should explain the links to classical music a little more - I'm trying to avoid examples unless absolutely necessary, but I guess a few won't hurt. It's easy to hear quasi-symphonic formal structuring in the music of Yes, and Gentle Giant's improvisations around the old forms are nothing short of stunning. I might also mention the Enid and a whole load of others - who anyone even remotely familiar with Prog Rock should already know inside and out.

Then there are the bands who incorporated snippets or whole pieces of classical music - surely I don't even need to mention ELP, Renaissance, et al - and we mustn't forget the bands that actually used avante-garde compositional methods or who had direct influence from it: 50% of Can studied under Stockhausen, Zappa, famously, had a soft spot for Varese (and was himself, a bona fide composer), and Shub-Niggurath composed using "Cells" or cut-down note-rows based on Serialism.

I think that the actual content is not only correct, but also the consensual perception of Progressive Rock music by the great unwashed... but I'm open to suggestion, and will happily expand the subject matter so that it makes more sense.


Secondly, what's dubious about "While the Ionian mode is still prevalent even in progressive rock" ?

If you check out most pieces by the pioneering bands, you'll notice that not too many of them wandered off this track into more "exotic" (read "older") modes - this seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, although it's true to say that acts such as King Crimson (notably) and jazz-fusion bands (by necessity) did use them.

Examples of non-Ionian mode pieces, please - preferably well-known and representational pieces rather than marginal.

Here, I think the actual content is again correct, but probably conflicts with the general perception.


Finally, what is the general feeling of the completely re-vamped Typical Characteristics section?

I'm quite happy that only two items were flagges as dubious - I was hoping for a halfway house so that the article is readable (and understandable) by non-musical folk and also satisfies the criteria of the more serious Prog Rock fan (of which there are a great number, if GEPR, ProgArchives and such sites are anything to go by!).

Does it sum up Prog Rock in 6 nutshells, or is it too retentive and rambling - even for Prog?

It certainly kills the laundry lists of examples!


Do you like the progressive structure of this post? :o) MarkCertif1ed 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell the story, as well as definitions and lists?

I'm beginning to think that definitions of prog rock and lists of bands and albums on the time line don't really tell the story as well as it might be told. It's almost as if the article is treating prog rock in the same way as blues, or something else relatively static. To me prog rock is about experimentation and change.

Prog rock did not spring fully formed, and I find it strange that King Crimson is seen as the start, when this doesn't seem to be what the time line says, either. I would see like to see how prog rock started. Perhaps the start was with "Tomorrow Never Knows" on Revolver (Beatles) or a Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd song (lengthy 40 minute songs on stage in London, Astronomy Domine, Arnold Layne as a single, or perhaps See Emily Play?). I would also like to know a little more about how the bands influenced each other, and how prog rock developed over time.

I know that other editors of this page know a lot more about what prog rock bands and songs are out there than I do, and I would like to know what people think of this approach.Trishm 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here - but remember that Progressive Rock has become known by defining characteristics like any other genre of Rock music - it does not always progress in a literal sense. even though, on the whole, that is exactly what it did between c.1969-1975.
From the bands that define what Prog Rock is (Crimson, Genesis, Tull, Yes, ELP, etc.), it's quite easy to work backwards and see the progression from "Heavy Rock", Folk, Psychedelic Rock and everything else that wasn't Soul, fused with more established pre-rock styles that had an air of authenticity or artistry - ie, "Classical" and jazz - especially "Progressive Jazz" that developed in the late 19402/early 1950s and culminated in "Bitches Brew".
It'd take a while to go through all the important bands in its development - The Byrds, the Beatles, CSN/Buffalo Springfield, The Nice, Pink Floyd, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers, the Pretty Things, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, the Doors - and I've hardly got started (but I'm working on it!).
The next idea is good - I hadn't thought of exploring the cross-semination, and it'd be a devil of a job to research - but it's quite apparent that "In the Court..." was a major player. Again, we'd need to be careful to avoid "laundry lists" - and you'd need to check sources very carefully. This would be a tricky thing to speculate on, even with in-depth analysis of the music - do you have good sources (ie musicians from Prog bands) with whom such links could be verified and even expanded upon?

Added references to Southern Cone bands

The article originally only mentioned three "New World" bands. A better term should have been North American, since the New World does include the rest of the Americas. As such, I've added references to a few of most imaginative prog bands from one of the hemisphere's most vibrant prog scenes: Argentina's.

    • Please insert your own username here - I've edited this post because you made it look like I wrote it!

I also don't believe this article needs any more references to bands - you can always go to Prog Archives or GEPR to research the area of Southern Cone bands, or follow a simple link from this article. References removed. :o)

A NOTE TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO ADD MORE EXAMPLES, ESPECIALLY TO THE LIST OF CONCEPT ALBUMS. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia article, not an attempt at an exhaustive list. Really, at this writing ( 22:02, 21 March 2006) there are still too many examples even after a pretty good paring down by Hipred; there is absolutely no need for more. Please make sure any additions you make add useful information to the article without making it read like a laundry list. Your favorite band does NOT need to be mentioned at every turn, though by all means add ONE reference somewhere if you think someone important has been overlooked. Thank you.


MarkCertif1ed 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • In that case, if we're choosing to avoid a major scene in this hemisphere, we should use North America instead of New World.
Please insert your username!

I don't think that "major scenes" should be avoided at all - that's not what I was saying.

Examples are meaningless to everyone but those people who already know the bands cited. What is needed is a general article section that discusses the scene as a general thing, with a link to an expanded article that will contain further links to specific bands.

If it's a major scene, then it should have its own page - linked to from this one - and if the band in question is a good representative, then it too should have its own page.

BUT it should be made a part of the discussion in the article, rather than another list.MarkCertif1ed 08:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The terms prog or prog rock

I do not remember these terms being used in the 1970's or 1980's. It seems to come from the streamlining of words and expressions that is common practice in the internet era.. It also at times seem to be used to describe bands of more recent vintage 69.117.59.34 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

As the article says, "It is commonly associated with symphonic rock and art rock, although the term progressive rock in today's usage often embraces a significantly wider spectrum of music than these styles". Maybe your point could be made more overtly in the article. Narssarssuaq 11:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the term Progressive Rock was not in general usage until the mid 1970s - pretty much after the whole "movement" had finished.
I think this needs discussion in the aticle itself - AFAIK, the term "Progressive" was first applied to jazz in the early 1950s (possibly late 1940s), and then to blues in the late 1960s.
For examples of usage when applied to Blues, look no further than DECCA's "World of Progressive Blues Power" collections, and Johnny Winter's album.
There is a one-off usage of the term "Progressive Rock", again, by DECCA, on their collection "Wowie Zowie" (1969), which features Genesis, Savoy Brown and Touch.

The terms "Prog" and "Prog Rock" are fairly recent developments, but are held to mean the same thing as Progressive Rock - which can be very confusing, as "Classic" Prog Rock (pre 1976) and modern day "Prog" are completely different, on the whole. Indeed, most modern "Prog" seems to be a watered-down interpretation of "Classic" Prog - unless anyone can point to concrete examples that prove this conception inaccurate.MarkCertif1ed 08:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


(My first-ever contribution to Wikipedia, so I hope I am not doing the wrong thing here...). In reply to the above, I wish to correct the assumptions made about the origin of various terms.

1) 'Progressive' was a fairly short-term label used in the late 1960s - and interchangeable with the term 'Underground' - by bands who wanted to escape from the general label of 'pop music', i.e. who wished their music to be taken seriously. This is exemplified by the Bath Festival of Blues which changed its name in 1969 to The Bath Festival of Blues, Underground and Progressive Music. Many bands so described in the late 1960s did not conform to the later definitions of 'prog', for example Fleetwood Mac, Led Zeppelin, Free, etc.

2) By 1971, the term 'progressive' had died out, as rock music had become by then a form which was being taken much more seriously. In the British music press of the time, you will find no reference to the term, it having been supplanted by the general term 'rock', under which bands like Yes and Genesis were promoted, reviewed and sold. This was at a time when many sub-genres did exist - folk-rock, country-rock, space-rock, Krautrock, jazz-rock, pub-rock, etc. But the term 'progressive' is conspicuous by its absence in the early 1970s.

3) The shortened term 'prog' did not exist before 1976. It was deliberately coined by the new wave of punk journalists (e.g. Charles Shaar Murray, Julie Burchill, Tony Parsons) to dismiss a genre which they particularly hated, along with 'stadium rock'. It was meant to sound contemptuous, but subsequently the label stuck, and has come into widespread use by the 21st Century. It is used widely to describe many disparate sub-genres of rock, but ironically was used by those who hated the genre to imply a stale, formulaic and overblown type of music, of which the examples regularly cited as existing in the mid-1970s would be the works of Emerson Lake and Palmer, and the solo albums from Rick Wakeman.

88.110.163.132 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the fleshing out - it's worth having a little discussion about the origins of the term in the introduction to the article - and I did do an extensive update and re-write, which now unfortunately seems to have been removed and replaced with the rather bland intro we have today. I'll remedy that in due course - as long as my updates are agreed with, of course! MarkCertif1ed 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No At the Drive-In?

This seems a little off. Relationship of Command is probably one of the best examples of prog/post-rock in the 90s, and TMV's Deloused in the Comatorium definitely qualifies no questions asked.

Good article but needs to be more complete. Kyuss is another example of 90s prog leanings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.13.77 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

More examples are the last thing we need. Could you explain the phrase "Kyuss is another example of 90s prog leanings" - are you talking about a band? Is this band an excellent and representative example of 90s prog rock? Why? Thanks! MarkCertif1ed 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for a Good Article.

This is a short note to all who have added to this article. Upon reading it, I find it to be very informative and enjoyable. There does seem to be anticedent commentary regarding quality and accuracy issues, and I would like to see that these are resolved, with corresponding notes on the Talk page, just so we know that all points are addressed. Bottom line, all have done a very good job. William R. Buckley 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's good. The next step should be to add more citations. See also WP:OR. Narssarssuaq 09:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Does verifiable fact count as a WP:OR violation? I think there's a fine line with articles concerning areas of the arts, in that many published works are themselves often unreliable, being but one person's view - often coloured by nostalgia. MarkCertif1ed 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
We're getting to it I think. Indeed, a few more citations would improve, or perhaps simply removing some unsourced statements here and there. I would also like to trim down the references to various bands and sub-styles and keep the most notable ones. --Childhood's End 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - where a sub-style is not grammatically descriptive of what it represents, it should be ignored as a passing phase. The terms "Progressive Rock" and "Prog Rock" have a core definable group of representative bands with identifiable musical attributes. Other more dubiuos bands are discussed in minute detail on Progressive Rock fan sites.
As above, I'm of the opinion that this article should look at what Progressive Rock is/was from an impartial and scientific viewpoint - which is something that most sources passionately avoid, hence their inherent unreliability. I'm not talking about self-spun theories, but adhering to provable fact - e.g. Genesis used the Mellotron, or Holgar Czukay was a pupil of Stockhausen. The problem is that we get stuff like "It is commonly associated with symphonic rock and art rock, although the term progressive rock in today's usage often embraces a significantly wider spectrum of music than these styles"
The above is nonsense at best - the definitions for symphonic rock and art rock are vague to the point of being meaningless, as they cross over with most people's definitions of progressive rock - including many of the same bands as examples.
This is also nonsense: "As well, they often reject specific genre norms, and use uncommon musical structures and ideas. Progressive rock often uses a melodic or symphonic approach to songwriting."
Think about it - ABBA used a melodic approach to songwriting - so this sentence contradicts itself when it says "rejects specific genre norms" (whatever that means). There are also very few examples of where Progressive rock bands have used "uncommon" musical structures or ideas - one only has to go back about 50 years or so in music to see that most of the structures and ideas used were anything but uncommon. If we're going to be specific, we should avoid being vague!
I'm not sure which sources would be of any use to cite, as most internet sources, at least, use Wikipedia as their source... :o)
Update to follow in the next month or so... MarkCertif1ed 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree for some part and disagree for another :)
It seems to me widely accepted that prog rock rejects specific genre norms and that it uses uncommon musical structures and ideas. I would thus keep this. But perhaps the "melodic" approach does not belong specifically to prog rock, yes. Perhaps what this was pointing to was that the melodic approach in prog rock is different than for mainstream rock genres (typically couplet, chorus, couplet, chorus...).
As for further above, I say we should consider any improvement suggestions, as I also understand that symphonic rock and art rock do not give much of an idea (especially symphonic rock, imho). --Childhood's End 13:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "rejects specific genre norms" is meaningless without context - What specific genre norms? What genre? How do we know these are norms? In what way(s) are these "rejected"?
Plenty of Prog Rock songs do use the structure you outlined, further underlining the meaninglessness of such urban myths. It's very common for a Prog Rock song to start with intro, verse, chorus, etc, and simply have an extended instrumental bridge - if we were being pedantic, we could even analyse songs like "The Musical Box" or "Echoes" and determine such a fundamental structure.
These things may be "widely accepted", but that doesn't stop them from being verifiably mistaken at a fundamental level. This is why many people think of Prog Rock (and it's fans) as being overbearingly pretentious. :o) MarkCertif1ed 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A few weeks ago a link that i posted a long time ago to a progressive rock related site was removed. I didn't want to make a big deal out of it, because i think this was an understandable reaction after this page being spammed with irrelevant links. Now the spam has calmed down, i'd like to reintroduce this link, as i think it is a useful community for progressive rock bands and fans. The name Bazaar could be misleading: it is certainly NOT a commercial site (neither is it some kind of obscure personal site). Also i think more external links should be allowed on this page (well, of course not some obscure fan page about Yes or something) as long as it's highly relevant (informational and about progressive rock).Bill Larivière 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid, forums, blogs, etc... should be avoided... they're just random online communities, and really contribute essential information to the subject...
I don't know about Bazaar, but I notice that every time someone adds a link to ProgArchives.com, it is deleted right away. I understand that the uninformed may find this to be a "random online community" - however, it is the leading prog site on the Net, and includes a wide range of genres and members, perhaps making it the closest the prog community gets to "authority" on the field. Its member profile and structure is admittedly inclusive, not unlike Wikipedia's. I feel that a link to this site is far more interesting, and would give far more output to people wanting to learn more, than the link to Progression Magazine, which honestly is way more random.Desor 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Fanzines and ezines are all, essentially, violations of WP:EL. That being said, 1 particularly notable site can be added if there is previous talk page discussion and concensus reached. If you are opening that type of discussion now... then I can concur with your thoughts that, of all the Prog fansites(and, in the end thats what they all are) then ProgArchives is certainly a prime candidate for inclusion as an external link. If a third editor can also agree, then this discussion will have reached a concensus and that 1 website can be added to the external links section. After it is added, also by this discussion, any other 'zines added to the EL section can deleted with both WP:EL and WP:CON as the background reasoning. Two votes for ProgArchives. Anyone else? 156.34.142.110 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Vote 3 :o) MarkCertif1ed 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just read ProgArchives' description of Progressive rock, and the phrase "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" sprang to mind. It's quite awful from this perspective, as it's riddled with misleading information of all those types!
I note that they're recently added The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Iron Maiden, Roxy Music and Deep Purple - who are by no means Progressive Rock bands.
Is this site outgrowing actual "Prog" and therefore becoming of limited use to readers of this article? MarkCertif1ed 12:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Improv in prog, jazz and classical music

About the sentence

"Another common structural feature lies in extended instrumental passages that are part composed and part improvised, aspects which are usually associated with jazz and Classical music"

I think this is dubious. Most progressive rock is almost 100% composed, totally unlike jazz, and classical music IS generally 100% composed. Also, metal and rock (which I guess is what the sentence compares progressive rock to) sometimes contains some improvs, such as guitar solos. In prog, only fusion and kraut contain a significant amount of improvisation, (and this could be precisely why at least fusion only is considered fringe prog). Narssarssuaq 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that jazz is mostly impro and that classical music is 100% composed. I would also agree that prog is mostly composed (some have impro, but well...). I although had to revert to this former version because the new text had references such as to Krautrock, which to me is really unfit so early in the article and within this section's topic. I'll try to reword later unless someone can find a better compromise.
The entire progressive genre covers the whole spectre with regard to improv, from the Kraut jams to 100% composed music. If we can't mention sub-genres, we should perhaps not mention improvs at all. Narssarssuaq 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this would do? : "Another common structural feature lies in extended composed instrumental passages, an aspect which is usually associated with classical music".
Rock and metal do have composed instrumental passages, but they are not usually very long, or "extended"... --Childhood's End 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm not sure this would make sense... Classical music is instrumental only :) --Childhood's End 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You've never heard of classical singing???--Scottandrewhutchins 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, of course, probably I should have considered it as included within the meaning of "classical music". --Childhood's End 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not true to say that most Progressive Rock is 100% composed - ELP, for instance is a clear case where the band jam around many of the ideas.

Jazz pieces are partially composed, and the improv is performed around certain structure points in the composition. You get more or less improv, but that there is some composition is unavoidable.

Classical Composers improvised all the time - Beethoven was renowned for his improvisations, as were Mozart and Bach. The pieces we have in manuscript form are a result of improvisation within a framework. MarkCertif1ed 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to semi-protect this article?

There has been a flurry of edits made by IP accounts recently. I have tried to follow and check this here and there, but it is getting out of control. While a few of these edits have actually improved the article (in my opinion), too many are merely additions of references or info about their favourite bands or simply about specific bands rather than about prog rock. This article already has way too many references to non-notable bands, and info about even notable ones. Perhaps it is time to semi-protect it for a while... Thoughts? --Childhood's End 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC) ut

I think there are still a lot of improvements that can be made - with proper discussion and approval. We've got a nice "B" rating now, so it'd be good to hold onto that - I will defend my contributions to the letter, unless there's a reasonable challenge :o) MarkCertif1ed 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree with that, there's still improvement that can be made. And I think that this article has the potential to be featured some day. But semi-protecting the article would not prevent editors like you to edit the article - only IP addresses and newly registered users. Yesterday alone, we had to revert "The Sound of Animals Fighting" and some mention that Rush was considered progressive only by uneducated people. IP accounts also regularly come here to add their favourite bands somewhere in the article. It's getting hard to control... --Childhood's End 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor addition

Since it wasn't mentioned before, I added that not only does (and always did) use polyrhythm, but also layering of entirely different time signatures (polymeter). Those are entirely different things when it comes to musical theory. And to my knowledge - outside of (contemporary) classical music - progressive rock (first of all King Crimson) was the first musical style which used polymeter... Jazz has only ever used polyrhythm, syncopated rhythm and hemiola etc, but no polymeter.... Regards, 84.56.74.250 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC) MikeB

That could be the case, but beware of original research. See WP:OR. Also, is it important enough to be included in the article? Narssarssuaq 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And it's not widely used enough to be a good generalism.MarkCertif1ed 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List Of Concept Albums

WP's List of albums has an entry for List of concept albums but there is no article there. Seems like one of us proggers would be qualified to start such an article - either open to all musical genres, or as "List of concept rock albums", "List of concept progrock albums" or "List of concept pop albums". Could be fun to make, informative, and fits with WP policy. Any thoughts? Gekritzl 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a List of concept albums, but I can't find it now. Maybe it's been deleted. Narssarssuaq 11:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Timbre" used and defined incorrectly

The word "timbre" is defined in this article as "instrumentation and dynamic." This is a complete misuse of the word "timbre." The "Timbre" wikipedia article definition is pretty accurate and is completely inconsistent with this progressive rock article's definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre) Timbre refers to the sound and tone color of a particular instrument or sound; it, in no way, refers to instrumental arrangement or dynamics. It describes the tone and sound of specific voices. I haven't made any changes myself, but it needs to be changed. Any thoughts? Pbmaverick 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that "Timbre" ususally means what you say, technically, but it seems here to refer to the "Timbre of a song or piece" instead of an instrument... --Childhood's End 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The term still has nothing to do with dynamics or instrument choice; it describes tone. Speaking of dynamics and instruments does not describe timbre. It is definitely used incorrectly in this article and should be removed. Pbmaverick 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont know, let's wait for more input. To me, a song that features different instruments than another song necessarily involves a different "timbre". --Childhood's End 20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That argument could be made in a strange way regarding instrumentation, though it still involves a misuse of the word's regular musical definition (and therefore, I feel, should be removed). However, including a description of dynamics is completely unmerited with regard to timbre. The volume of a sound certainly has nothing to do with its tone color, whether one is speaking of a full band or of one particular voice.Pbmaverick 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The volume of a sound does alter a tone's colour - it's an easily demonstrable fact: Try shouting, then whispering. Do the two sound different - apart from the volume?

Instrumentation is also a part of timbre - Wikipedia's article states very clearly: "Timbre has been called "the psychoacoustician's multidimensional wastebasket category" [1] as it can denote many apparently unrelated aspects of a sound.".

Timbre is in no way limited to a single instrument - timbre is one of the 5 basic elements of music as a phenomenon, and music does not limit itself to individual instruments, but instead is the sum of its parts. MarkCertif1ed 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


...at least. the same is true of words and sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Roxy Music

I suggest adding Roxy Music to the list of notable progressive bands in the lead. Badagnani 04:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At least notability-wise, I dont think Roxy Music is on par with Rush, Jethro Tull and co. --Childhood's End 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No - Roxy Music are not an example of Progressive Rock. The definition needs updating, and I think I might have something... MarkCertif1ed 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Roxy Music is actually Art-Rock. M.V.E.i. 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Progressive Rock is technically a subgenre of Art Rock - if the term "Art Rock" is used correctly (which it rarely is, as most often it's just used as a bucket into which unknowns are placed). There's little that's particularly artistic about most of Roxy Music's output.
I have bought progressive compilations that included Roxy Music on it, but I thought they stuck out like a sore thumb. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NEW DEFINITION

Let's see what comments this attracts over the next couple of months. I came up with it in response to a post about Progressive Music on ProgArchives.com (a growing force in the world of Prog Rock now, with 12,500 members or so). The reactions there were only positive - but maybe there's still something missing.

Essentially, what I'm trying to do with this is provide a concrete definition based on observable and verifiable fact, not opinion or private research - just common sense.

The idea is then to expand this to provide a historical context, and structure the article better so that it flows well and loses the need for "laundry lists".


PROGRESSIVE ROCK: A (very potted) definition by Certif1ed.

Progressive Rock is a form of rock music that evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s, principally from psychedelic rock - and ultimately, but also as a result of jazz-rock fusion and experimentation with electronic instruments.

The main defining characteristics and tendencies are that the compositions are more elaborate than standard rock song structure of verse, chorus, etc., the arrangements incorporate stylisations based on jazz, classical, world or even avant-garde music, and the lyrics, where they exist, are often conceptual or based in fantasy.

Some progressive rock bands took the explorations into composition and style to such extremes, that their music ceased to be Rock at all - and so it is that the term Progressive Rock has become less useful than the term Progressive Music. MarkCertif1ed 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Time signature/Mixed meters

Does people here know about music theory? Do you think prog music have a lot of different time signatures and/or mixed meters (signatures)?? Khullah 03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Progressive Rock uses different time signatures, some doesn't. For example, "Dance on a Volcano" by Genesis is largely in 7/4, and so are "Money" by Pink Floyd, and "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead.

It's a widely held misconception that the use of unusual time sigs is a feature of Progressive Rock - in reality, most bands don't use anything outside of 4/4, or will gravitate back to it - e.g., the "rock" sections of "Money", "Paranoid Android" (can't remember if "Dance..." changes or not offhand...).

One of Genesis' popular hits (widely considered as not true Prog Rock), "Turn it on Again" is in 13/4, as is "Golden Brown" by the Stranglers.

So while Prog Rock may use odd time sigs, the use of odd time sigs is not the most important factor in deciding whether a piece is Prog Rock or not. MarkCertif1ed 07:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It still is an important factor, though. It can certainly help differentiate between progressive music and non-progressive music, obviously not EVERY prog song will be out of 4/4 in parts. I know a lot of other music has different time signatures in places but not necessarily in the same structure progressive music applies them. It may not be a "defining factor", but it is still an important facet, in most progressive music. --Crescent Armada 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --Childhood's End 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There are many "defining factors" - it's important not to focus too tightly on a single one or even subset of factors. This is how people get confused about what constitutes a Progressive Rock act. People try to define it using a couple of loose criteria, to include their favourite band in the elite that is Progressive Rock, then find out that many bands that would never in a million years be considered Prog use the exact same techniques.
Interesting that you mention structure - it's my belief that form (structure) is the key defining factor of Progressive Rock.MarkCertif1ed 07:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sun Ra?

I'm not big into Progressive rock (or dealing with categories anyway), but if prog rock is "also as a result of jazz-rock fusion and experimentation with electronic instruments", hasn't Sun Ra been a major influence on anyone in the genre? --John_Abbe 05:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many bands that were influences on the genre - the important thing is to be specific - if Sun Ra were profoundly influential, for example, you'd need to say which innovations were picked up by which bands. MarkCertif1ed 09:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal : Delete "Influences" sub-section

The article's sub-section "Influences" is merely a pile-up of the favourite obscure bands of editors who came by and added them, and it offers little if no valuable information. Per se, all musical styles have had various influences, especially prog rock, and it seems to me a meaningless exercise to try to enumerate all the bands that have been minimally influenced by some element of progressive rock at some point. Agree/disagree? --Childhood's End 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - we need to reduce lists to make the article more readable. MarkCertif1ed 09:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Moog Taurus Bass Pedals

This may seem a little flipant, but would this be the right page to write about the influence on Prog Rock of the Moog Taurus Bass Pedal? Doozy88 17:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A better general discussion of popular instruments used would certainly be usefulMarkCertif1ed 09:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Name was initially applied to bands such as Yes, Genesis"etc

deleted for reference to new article.

Melodymaker1969 08:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It jolly well IS true - the term Progressive Rock wasn't widely used until the mid 1970s, by which time the "movement" was almost over, and referred to precisely those ENGLISH bands.

The term Progressive was regular and fashionable coinage - it was used in conjunction with the Cool Jazz of Miles Davis and Lennie Tristano... hang on - the article explains this (I know, I did the updates :o) MarkCertif1ed 08:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall the first use of the term Progressive Rock in the late 60s on FM radio. It referred to groups like The Byrds, The Airplane/Starship, The Doors, SuperSession, and many others who today's "definers" would not assign the term. What Progressive Rock was then was a movement away from the general top 40 music, in style and content, as part of the Counter-Culture. At least, that is how the term was being used in Cleveland at the time. ``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrZom (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard Progressive Rock

I just added the subgenre "hard progressive rock" which is too important to be ommited. As Dream Theater in their footage to "Live at Budokam" DVD defines their genre as "hard progressive rock" (By Petrucci to be acurate.) So it seems useful to put this link open for further grow. --Sepand 18:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's so important - and even less why it applies to Dream Theater. Just because Petrucci says that's what DT play doesn't make it so. DT play and have always played a type of Metal music - it's got riffs and solos and everything. Whether it's actually progressive of not is open for debate :o) MarkCertif1ed 08:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Altering Mention of Rush Album

I loved reading the Progressive Rock page, but was surprised by the 80s section, which mentioned popular efforts by King Crimson, Asia and Yes, but nothing about Rush, though their most successful album (Moving Pictures) and single ("Tom Sawyer") were from this era. I made brief mention of Moving Pictures and listed the three singles from it, noting that "Tom Sawyer" was the group's biggest hit. All told, it was no more than three sentences long, briefer than the nods to King Crimson and Yes. A few minutes later, it was changed and greatly shortened, with no special mention of "Tom Sawyer". However, the section goes on to describe in detail Yes' hit, "Owner of a Lonely Heart". Why the change, and how does the editor defend it?

It was a hasty pov/cruft clean. The article is in need of some WP:NPOV cleaning. Of course Tom Sawyer can be mentioned. Will rp it in a bit. 156.34.221.221 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to metion specific albums - it just turns the article into a nasty laundry list. The albums can be mentioned on the band's pages, unless they're truly revolutionary, like "In The Court...". MarkCertif1ed 08:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

JETHRO TULL

I wouldn't say that they were progressive in any way myself. More linked to folk and blues, don't you think? DaveEx 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Progressive music spans far and wide, including many influences. Of course they are linked to folk and blues, as many modern progressive bands are more linked to, for instance, metal, like Opeth. But the way they execute their music makes them more than just an ordinary blues or folk band. --Crescent Armada 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Take your point about the invention, but still not convinced.DaveEx 18:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Say what you like - Jethro Tull are widely acknowledged as one of the early Progressive bands.

If you want to take that approach, you could argue that King Crimson were more linked to blues and jazz (similar in many ways to bands like Bakerloo, May Blitz, High Tide, etc.), that Genesis were more linked to folk and so on.

The link is strong to folk, obviously, but then that's a feature of Prog Rock - it takes on aspects and flavours of other genres. Read the typical characteristics section on the main article and listen to what Tull did - especially on the albums up to and including the incontrovertibly proggy "Thick as a Brick". Odd time sigs abound - Barrie Barlow was/is master of these - and the rock element is very strong. There's a clear breaking away from blues structures - it's not at all hard to hear.

Hope this helps :o) MarkCertif1ed 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tull death us do part

You're obviously a fan, fair enough. And I don't disagree that Tull subsequently absorbed the prog influences, and became part of it, but that was much later. Early Tull were not, in my opinion, at all progressive. But then, they were inventive enough (as has been said) to warrant a case for inclusion, albeit a tenuous one. I just wanted to throw the question in, to see what others thought. But I think you're going too far when you suggest that they were at the heart of the movement! Another point I'd like to make is that the original Tull, with Mick Abrahams, Glen Cornick, Clive Bunker, were the true Jethro Tull. Ian's obsession with getting his own way led to the band being merely him plus his chosen minions - the heart of the band was decimated. OK, still sold the records to the fans who were already sold, but none of the later incarnations was a patch on the original band, especially on stage. The problem was that the guys from Ian's original Blackpool group were basically semi-pro in quality, much inferior to the guys they had replaced. I know, I was there and saw (and heard) it happen. Of course, Ian was so talented that anything he did was still clever and interesting. DaveEx 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm not really a fan - I only own one Tull album, and it's a "Best of". Besides, my comments aren't fanboyisms - I'm making factual observations of the music, not telling you how much I like it!

Besides, Yes' first album isn't Prog either - and nor are Genesis or Pink Floyd's early outings... shall we continue?

The point I'm making is that Tull are WIDELY regarded as being one of the original 10 or so founder groups that represent what Prog Rock is, no matter what is "True" Tull - it's Ian's band, so anything he wants to do with it is real and true enough.

Saying that the first line-up is the only true one seems a bit silly to me - what if Genesis had remained with their original line-up? Pink Floyd?

Interesting discussion, but off-topic, unless you've got something concrete to add to it - like some notable authorities on Prog Rock that agree with your sentiment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCertif1ed (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you're not a fan, but you seem to have a pretty big axe to grind, all that tosh about 'widely regarded' (and in BIG letters to convince yourself it must be true!). Is that what you mean by 'notable authorities'? We can all find a couple of guys to agree with ourselves. Well the authorities I know (!) would say no way were Jethro were among the original '10 or so' founder groups of Prog. Maybe a case for inclusion, but that's about it. Bands like King Crimson, Yes, The Nice are much more defined in Prog terms. For instance, Crimson's jazz and blues are merely influences, Tull's are there by definition. And as for being Ian's band, so he can do what he wants with it, that's true, but doesn't mean he's ended up with anything better. Excrement is real and true enough, after its conversion from the original product. Then again, that's not fair on Ian. Anything he produced would be interesting. But you can't just kill that magical chemistry and expect to get anything even approaching the quality. It's the sum total of the parts, not the parts. Ian didn't want chemistry, he wanted control. Chemistry comes by accident, not design. Or do you think it's justified because of continued record sales? Maybe you do, if your observations on Genesis and Pink Floyd are anything to go by. Disagree with that kind of thinking. But I don't have any axes to grind on this, the Jethro of the late 60s was a really good band, I don't have quibbles about that. And the labels don't matter, the music does. It was just a passing observation, and one I know to be true, from being there, and seeing it happen. I should be careful of authorities if I were you. You might start to believe you're one yourself. DaveEx 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge, I'd think most people who knew anything about Prog would include Tull in the original 10, but I'd be happy to bow to a good argument why they shouldn't. Who are your "authorities"? It'd be good to cross-refer with the source.
You could always try a straw poll at a site like Prog Archives.com, where you'll get a cross-section of a large number of Prog fans.
Your opinions are interesting, if a little confused and somewhat misguided in the way you express them, if you don't mind me saying - but you're obviously passionate about your subject, so that's OK. It's a bit unfair of you to make all those assumptions on what I might be thinking though, and distinctly not conducive to a good discussion.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that were "there" - but if you remember it, surely you weren't really? ;o)
MarkCertif1ed 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you admit your knowledge is limited, that's a start! But I was only asking a question, not expressing a strong opinion, I like Tull, nothing worth fighting over. If there was, I'd dig out authorities for you to sniff at, though nuff said bout authorities! Maybe I was unfair about assumptions, you're right. And I appreciate your good humour regardless. But I really was there. Though as you suggest, it's a bit like a blind man feeling part of an elephant and trying to decide what it looks like. One guy's meat is another's poison etc. Good luck. DaveEx 09:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem pretty convinced at the answer to your question, and that's intriguing, as it differs to every other opinion I've encountered. I concede that Tull's early material is bluesy - with more than a touch of folk, but the albums they released during the heyday of Prog are, by and large, Prog - so it seems to make sense to include them in any list of originators of the genre.
My most convincing source is here; http://www.j-tull.com/discography/studio.html, although I "have it on good authority" that Ian himself didn't like Tull to be thought of as Prog Rock, and Thick as a Brick was just poking fun at the genre. Mind you, I've also heard that Fripp hates the term Progressive Rock, and there's something about the word "Prog" that I don't like...
The second (less convincing, badly written, but nonetheless adequately authoritative) source is here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(band), where the term "archetypal" is used.
Personally, I think that's going too far - Genesis, Crimson and Yes are probably the only archetypes, but it takes more than archetypes to form the core of a genre; for example, Pink Floyd are hardly the archetypal Prog band (many proggers have issues with their simplicity and clearly blues-rooted songs), yet they are core to how Prog Rock developed and is still being produced. Tull, along with VDGG and Gentle Giant are great and bleeding-edge bands that showcase the diversity of Prog (that most modern Prog bands are sadly lacking) - yet none of those 3 have the influence of the 3 archetypes - or Floyd. But VDGG and GG are also "widely held" to be at the core of the "movement".
I guess a line should be drawn - should we limit the list to the archetypes or keep it as "widely held" examples (bearing in mind that listing everyone is NOT an option!)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkCertif1ed (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess we're all convinced about our own replies! And I knew Ian, he didn't like labels at all. The trouble with history is it depends who's writing it. And fame helps a lot too. I'd say that the group who had more to do with what happened than anyone is 1-2-3, but because they didn't become famous, the bands who took the idea from them got the credit instead, Yes, The Nice, King Crimson, Genesis, all derivative of what 1-2-3 did at least 2yrs before them. Though lately there seems to be some acknowledgement of that. Then again, lots of pioneers get lost in the history books for the same reason. Understandably, people who follow on later identify it all with the most famous groups rather than the ones they stole the ideas from. Of the ones you mention, I'd say only Floyd were original. And Tull were individual, if not original. But that's truth, not history. DaveEx 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, I like to see it as a hardcore list surrounded by a few peripheral 'maybes'. But looking at what you're trying to do, I think you're doing a good job. Follow your own instincts, they seem fine to me.DaveEx 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Who and Led Zeppelin...

A lot of references to these bands seem to have suddenly appeared recently.

Hopefully everyone agrees that neither are tier 1 (or even tier 2) prog rock bands - or am I being picky? MarkCertif1ed 20:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see why someone might think that they're prog bands, particularly The Who from Tommy to Quadrophenia, but they're usually not referred to as such. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - and one would never consider them Prog Rock in the same sense as, for example, Jethro Tull or Gentle Giant (Tier 1) or even Barclay James Harvest or Camel (Tier 2) MarkCertif1ed 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Also, Kansas, Rush and Marillion keep getting added to the paragraph that begins "The term was originally applied to...".
I beg to differ that the term Progressive Rock was originally applied to these bands - most hadn't formed when Prog Rock was in its infancy, and since the term came into general use a year or so before either Rush or Kansas gained widespread popularity, I can't believe that the term was originally applied to them. As for Marillion, well... no comment!
Rush and Marillion need to be mentioned, but in appropriate places , e.g. Marillion as an example of a Neo-Prog act. Kansas I'm not at all sure about - as far as I can recall, "Leftoverture" is their only truly proggy album, and it's second tier compared to the English bands.
Concurrence? MarkCertif1ed 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Kansas is definitely prog from their inception to 1980, and probably from 1985 on. It's hard to imagine a description that fits songs like "Belexes," "Imcommundro", "Apercu," "Lamplight Symphony," "Angels Have Fallen," etc. better than prog. They did not start until 1971, so they would not be the earliest, but they are by far the most important American band described as prog and should rate a mention. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A "mention" isn't a badge of honour - a band is mentioned because of their contextual importance - so if we were discussing important American prog bands, then Kansas are probably the first one would think of.
However, when discussing the origins of the genre as a whole (not geographically), Kansas are not so important - the Komische bands rank much higher in their innovative and experimental approaches, even though many of them owe a huge debt to Pink Floyd.
Kansas, by contrast, merely had a progressive style, as opposed to overall approach. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that in this light, it's hard to count them among the originators of the genre.
MarkCertif1ed 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Who are commonly cited for their work in the area of the rock opera, which falls under progressive rock. See: [3] and Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development 74.77.208.52 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But they are not known as prog acts primarily, that's the point. Freshacconci 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
According to who? You? Not good enough. Take it up with the rock 'n' roll history text book I cited. 74.77.208.52 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to the consensus being developed above. I obviously can only check the online source at the moment, but it basically states that prog rock can be a blanket term that includes rock opera, but the Who is not listed as a key prog rock act. In other words, according to your source, rock operas can be included in the overall term, but not as the main definition, which again is the whole point: who are the main figures of prog rock, i.e. acts known primarily as prog. The Who went through various stages, including rock operas. Feel free to work this in somehow, but they can't be listed as a key prog act. That's why we have discussion pages, to build consensus. Don't just revert and delete wholesale. It borders on vandalism. Cheers! Freshacconci 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the robust debate! It's not that The Who are a "key" prog rock act or "main figures of prog" or anything like that. They are not being listed as such in this wikipedia article. They are simply receiving their due mention for their innovation and popularization of the rock opera, a form which emphatically falls under the umbrella of progressive rock according to multiple sources. This is a cited and referenced opinion. Cheers, to you, too! 74.77.208.52 02:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The online source specifically mentions The Who. The Rock 'n' Roll History textbook I cited placed their write-up on The Who in the Art Rock (Progressive Rock) section instead of the British Invasion section, due to the importance they placed on The Who's innovation of the rock opera. You can verify that for yourself with the link I posted by perusing the Table of Contents. We aren't supposed to be editing these pages with our opinions and/or creating original work. We are supposed to be using the information of reputable sources. For the record, I'm not contesting Led Zeppelin's omission, but The Who are emphatically progressive rock according to my sources, which includes a college level course. Thanks for reading! 74.77.208.52 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First: The Who didn't write Rock Operas - they just told people they did, and people believed them because they saw a great film with inspirational pop songs that went with it.
Second: Tommy wasn't the first Rock Opera (not that it was a Rock Opera!). Surely Andrew Lloyd Webber is more deserving of being listed, if Rock Opera is so important?
Third: I haven't read the book cited here - but I have read others, and none exhort the Who in such a fashion.
Fourth: The Real Music service at the link you provide is OK, but I wouldn't take it as an authority over everywhere else - still less a "reputable source", since it's misguided in some of its categorisations and vague in its definitions: It more or less says that Art Music and Progressive Rock are the same thing. They're not - Progressive Rock is a type of Art Rock, but not all Art Rock is Prog Rock!
Finally: I've also done a college course or two - the first one I attended was very light on reference material (there wasn't much around back then), so I had to do a lot of original research. The only thing a college course will tell you in regard to Progressive Rock is that no-one really knows what it is. Maybe I should publish my own research, and become my own authoritative source ;o) MarkCertif1ed 07:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should. Saying The Who didn't write rock operas is complete tosh. They coined the phrase so they can define it however they like. Tommy predates Jesus Christ Superstar. So do The Who's first stabs at the rock opera form with 1966's "A Quick One While He's Away" and 1967's "Rael". The Who's efforts in the rock opera form are certainly far more "progressive" than Pink Floyd's, since The Wall is nothing more than Pink Floyd's version of Tommy, arriving over a decade later. Several of the songs of Tommy have more in common with classical works than anything on The Wall as well. You may think you know what progressive rock is, but I'll stand by my published sources. 74.77.208.52 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Your description of my opinion as "complete tosh" without good evidence is not helpful to either your cause or rational discussion.
Check here, where it's fully acknowledged that "Rock Opera" is a misnomer in most cases; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_opera (an article written by a Who fan, it would seem, as there's no mention of Queen or Andrew Lloyd Webber's earlier outing, not to mention other attempts at Rock Opera outside of the Pretty Things and Pink Floyd - anyone reading it might think that these are the only 3 examples, which they're not!).
No-one was trying to claim that "Jesus Christ Superstar" predates "Tommy" - but it's much, much closer to the real thing. The Andrew Lloyd Webber piece that does predate "Tommy" - and is closer to being an actual Rock Opera - is "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat".
Also, the Pretty Things "SF Sorrow" predates "Tommy" by a year, and is widely acknowledged to be the first Rock Opera (although again, it isn't really). Most sources point out the pieces you refer to - but a single piece does not make an opera, so again, I find this misleading. It's like saying that "Days of Future Passed" is the first symphonic prog album just because it features an orchestra. Well hang on - so do many Frank Sinatra albums.

frank sinatra didn't work in a collective or write his own material, you're using incorrect criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also like reading articles that claim "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a mini-opera. It's understandable how people could reach this conclusion, given the general misunderstanding of what opera is by the general public and the rock world's attempt to confuse it further, but "BR" is simply operatic in style - not to mention entirely tongue in cheek, as the lyrical content is meaningless.
The Wall isn't really a Rock Opera either - but it's a bit closer than the Who's efforts, as it at least has passages that resemble recitative, arioso - and even operetta in the trial scene.
The Who's historian, Richard Barnes points out that "Tommy" is not really an opera - so I know whose (sic) opinion I'd choose in this case. Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_%28rock_opera%29
Finally, I don't think I know what Progressive Rock is - it's an ongoing learning process, and it's patently clear, after nearly 25 years of research, that very few other people actually know what it is either. Most people have their own pet ideas of what it is, and most are right in some ways and wrong in others - so please accept the limitations of your source, since it is such a personal subject that there is indubitably a lot of POV in it. MarkCertif1ed 07:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care who says Tommy isn't a "real opera" since it doesn't claim to be. It claims to be a "rock opera," a phrase coined by The Who. You say The Wall is closer to rock opera, utilizing your definition of what a rock opera should be. I say Tommy is closer to rock opera, as, unlike The Wall, it contains an overture and utilized instrumental passages and recurring musical themes a decade before The Wall did. I also say it's closer to rock opera since The Who invented the form, so they ought to know. Regardless, The Wall is Pink Floyd trying to make their Tommy. I don't see what's so "progressive" about mimicry.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is all over the map. It's far from a rock opera. A couple Elvis impersonations in a pastiche of broadway showtunes, calypso, country music, etc. do not a rock opera make. It also doesn't predate either "A Quick One While He's Away" or "Rael". A rock opera is a narrative expressed through a series of rock songs, so length doesn't matter. I don't recall anyone saying a rock opera has to be album length or double album length or anything like that. Certainly not the guy who invented it: Pete Townshend. Rush's rock opera 2112 isn't even album length. It's only on the first side. S.F. Sorrow also doesn't predate "A Quick One While He's Away" or "Rael". It's the first album length rock opera. Not the first rock opera. I don't know why you're bringing up Queen, since they didn't release anything until 1973 and their experiments are in the realm of operatic rock, as opposed to rock opera which is narrative based.

But none of this matters. I have published sources and you do not. Saying The Who didn't write rock opera is downright Orwellian. They invented the form. They popularized the form. They coined the phrase. They're the rock artist most associated with the form. The day your theories are taught at the university level nationwide is the day you'll have a point. Until then, I'll stand by what's been taught in the past, is taught today, and will continue to be taught until you or someone else convinces the world that The Who aren't representative of the musical form they're best known for:Encyclopedia Britannica Good luck. 74.77.208.52 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


While your opinions are interesting, they are also entirely POV. I looked at the link you provided, then searched for Rock Opera in that same site (Encyclopaedia Britannica (Concise Edition)). The Who were not at the top of the list that the search returned - instead, it appeared to be Andrew Lloyd Webber who dominated the list. You can imagine my surprise...
There is little concurrence that The Who are a key Prog Rock act, so they should not be added to the first section - is the point of this discussion, and that much still holds water. If they were going to be mentioned in relation to Prog Rock (what is this fever that grips people to have their favourite bands "mentioned"?), then it would be as a note under a single one of the typical characteristics sections, or maybe somewhere in the discussion about Concept albums - which at the moment is a complete mess.
The side discussion of what consitutes a Rock Opera is moot, as you yourself agree that it is not Opera as I understand it - which is basically the same way the world's Opera community understands it, and "Jesus Christ Superstar" exemplifies.
You even underscore the fact that "Tommy" is pure rock at heart in your attack on Joseph for having influences which are too diverse. All of this makes the Who/Prog link even harder to grasp, and the Lloyd Webber link easier to see.
Saying that since they invented it, it can be whatever they like is not a very convincing argument, if you'll excuse my bluntness. I wonder if there will be any concurrence here or anywhere else on the internet?


MarkCertif1ed 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you've really lost me, because I've never claimed that The Who are a core prog rock band. Ever. I don't know what you are talking about. The article as it currently stands is fine with me. It does not say anywhere that The Who are a core prog rock band. It appropriately mentions their two album length rock operas in the "Characteristics" section and their first use of the form with "A Quick One While He's Away" in the "Precursers" section. I also never agreed that Tommy is not a rock opera. Where are you getting that from? I said it's not a real opera. But it is emphatically a rock opera, a form which falls in the realm of progressive rock. I'm also only referring to the album and The Who concert performances of the album when I say it's not a real opera. When the work is staged, as it was on Broadway, then it's certainly a real opera. Far more real than The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and The Wall. I also defy you to listen to the album and then tell me that "Overture" and "Underture" are just rock songs. The classical music influences are obvious. Standard rock form? Hardly. Keith Moon's approach to the drumkit alone on the album is truly progressive, in the original and best sense of the word. On another note, I fail to see how anyone can listen to "Baba O'Riley" and say with a straight face that it's not progressive. It's unlike anything that existed before, a strange melange of the minimalism of Terry Riley, anthemic rock and an irish jig on speed. Heck, The Who were playing "In the Hall of the Mountain King" before Emerson, Lake and Palmer even existed. So I could easily make an argument that The Who are a progressive rock band without even mentioning their rock operas at all. The Who are groundbreakers. That's what progressive rock really is. Rock music that is making progress, going beyond what has been done before. That makes The Who far more "progressive" than bands like Dream Theatre who are merely continuing a tradition created decades before. So what do you want to do? Remove mention of Tommy and Quadrophenia from the rock opera portion of the article? Albums that predate both The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and The Wall, making them far more progressive? Deny that rock opera falls under progressive rock, when I have sources from uk.real.com and Rock 'n' Roll: Its History and Sylistic Development saying that it does? Deny that The Who wrote rock operas when every source, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that they did? You even do a search on the Encyclopedia Britannica site and then hilariously claim that the source is flawed, when, clearly, it's the search engine that is flawed. So what is your aim here? I've provided sources. Three of them, not one. Including a university level textbook and a respected encyclopedia. You claim to have many sources and present none of them. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, here. 74.77.208.52 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And now you just completely changed what I was replying to. That's just great. Like I said, I'm fine with the article as it stands, in relation to The Who. I'm not trying to get The Who added to the first section as a key prog band. I never have been. No one has that I can tell. Their albums Tommy and Quadrophenia are appropriately mentioned. A mention you tried to remove. "A Quick One While He's Away" is mentioned in the precurser section. That's also appropriate. I'm satisfied. Are you? 74.77.208.52 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, my opinions aren't POV when I'm citing textbooks and encyclopedias. Sheesh. 74.77.208.52 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Serves me right for saving test edits again... there are few people as quick to respond around here as you seem to be.
Your views on what make Progressive Rock are actually views on what makes rock progressive - see, Progressive Rock is not the same thing at all. I suggest you learn something about the genre - there's a quite informative article on Wikipedia, although it's not quite perfect yet...MarkCertif1ed 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You've answered none of my questions. I've looked at the history of your edits. No one was adding The Who to the first section. No one was saying they are a key prog act worthy of the first section. No one was saying that Led Zeppelin is a prog act. I don't know how you got that impression from the section you deleted, since that section was in fact differentiating Led Zeppelin from prog. The Who are mentioned in the characteristics and precursers sections for their rock opera works. That's fine with me. 74.77.208.52 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the by, I'd love for you to explain why Emerson, Lake and Palmer performing classical pieces on rock instruments in the seventies is prog rock, but The Who doing it in 1967 isn't prog rock. Or don't you hold that opinion? 74.77.208.52 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I propose that there is a brief discussion of Concept albums as an aspect of Progressive Rock, and a link to the Concepts album page, where the Who and their albums are more appropriately listed.
I would like concurrences or disagreements from one of the people who have been key to getting this article upgraded to its current "B" status, so that we can move on and gain "A" status. MarkCertif1ed 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion edited for relevance MarkCertif1ed 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock opera has been a part of this article for years, since long before either you or I got here. There's a reason for that. Genesis, The Who, Jethro Tull, Rush, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, Styx, Electric Prunes, Dream Theatre, etc. all produced rock operas. So, unless you want me to tackle the lead of this article next with my references and citations, let it go. 74.77.208.52 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that the first time references and citations have been used as a threat on Wikipedia? Question for the proponent: what are the five most notable rock operas in the "mid-1970s peak of Progressive Rock"? I can think of plenty of concept albums, but not rock operas; however, I invite you to convince me, if you're of a mind to do so. ShaneCarey 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the bands you mention, only 2 are core, and each produced a single example - both of which are just as commonly known as Concept albums. Pink Floyd's release was after the Core period, as was Rush's. Zappa cannot under any circumstances be considered as typical of the Prog Rock genre - in my humble opinion, of course.
Dream Theater are Prog Metal, which is different to Prog Rock, Styx, the Electric Prunes and The Who are not Prog Rock - these are bald facts for which no citation is even required!
This heavily underscores my *opinion* that rock opera is not central to Progressive Rock and its development - indeed, it suggests that rock opera is merely a single influence among many that went into the melting pot. Hardly a defining characteristic in my opinion. I'm going to get that textbook you keep plugging to find out what compelling evidence it has to the contrary.
Again, I urge you to read the guidelines before someone complains about your inappropriate behaviour.
Have a nice day. MarkCertif1ed 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a nice day, too. Please do get that textbook and see what section they put their write-up on The Who in. Just as uk.real.com does, it conflates Art Rock and Progressive Rock, and places The Who in that section due to their work in the rock opera form. They picked that chapter instead of the British Invasion or Psychedelic Rock or Hard Rock, etc. You appear to want this article to be only about "Prog", which is what your beloved tricky time-signature bands of the mid-seventies fall under. Progressive Rock is a broader genre than that, despite your attempts at revisionism. Here's yet another source for you: Amazon.com Endless Wire Look what it says towards the bottom. Now, why on earth would progressive rock be there, I wonder? And here and here. Isn't that odd. How about Tommy at Allmusic and Quadrophenia at Allmusic and Endless Wire at Allmusic. Look what it says under "styles". University text books, uk.real.com, Amazon.com and Allmusic all seem to think rock opera falls under progressive rock. It's not some big conspiracy. Here's a progressive rock class from Colorado University: MUSC 5832-001 American Music: Progressive Rock Here's an excerpt: Week 4 (2/6): 60s Psychedelic Rock II: The Nice, Pink Floyd, Soft Machine, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, The Who, Deep Purple Yes, those are all progressive rock bands, by the acknowledged broader definition that you're railing against. Here's another link: [4]. Look who's there. I could do this all day. Notable rock operas from the mid-seventies include Tarkus, A Passion Play, Quadrophenia, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars and 2112. Just because artists like Bowie and The Who played music that wouldn't be classified as progressive doesn't mean they never played it. Thanks for reading. 74.77.208.52 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because The Who sometimes played progressive rock doesn't mean that Quadrophenia exemplifies rock operas as characteristic of Progressive Rock. I'm not convinced by your examples -- not all are generally agreed to be rock operas, and not all are notable enough to typify the genre. If you were to forget for a moment how important it is to you to prove that The Who were a progressive rock band, would you really be so insistent that adding the "rock opera" clause is so much more descriptive of the genre than letting "concept albums" cover it?

That said, I acknowledge my mistake in stepping into the middle of this argument. Unless you have some reason to want me involved, I apologize for the intrusion. ShaneCarey 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rest of argument removed - the differences between the two parties have been resolved, even though we both stand by our opinions. This has been taken into account, and a proposed new "Proto-Prog" section will be put forward for discussion that will take both points of view into account with factual references.

"New" History section

I find the History section might be the weakest part of the article as it stands now. The first two paragraphs of the subsection "Precursors" lack references and look to me too far from the subject. I would consider starting this subsection at the current third paragraph. The subsection "Early bands" has even bigger problems. References to minor, obscure and non-notable bands flourish, but the reader finds nothing about Genesis, King Crimsom, and other 'majors'. We then find a first reference to Genesis in the next section (Ascending popularity) only to be told that Phil Collins formed a group called Brand X ?!? I'll wait for some thoughts, but I suggest to rework this (perhaps some good material was lost in the article's restructuration which we should retrieve). --Childhood's End 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for 'tightening' up the articles and references, but you must be careful when you make decisions about what you regard as 'minor, obscure, and non-notable bands'. Many of these groups were the true originators, certainly not Genesis, Crimson and other 'majors'. All of these bands without exception took their ideas from the 'minor' bands, and claimed the credit because of their fame. Let's have true history, not history as some would wish it to be. I'm not suggesting that's your motive, but I hope you're aware of the danger of the fame trap.DaveEx 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree - Crimson is arguably where it all began, ie, ask most Prog fans or read any book, and ITCOTCK will be referred to as the first (sometimes grudgingly). What happened before that album should be documented - but the impact it had should be made clear. "Court" is revolutionary in many ways, and musically signifies a new genre. The ingredients, of course, came from elsewhere (chicken and egg).
The history section is not wonderful as it stands - the bit between the Precursors and the Early bands is notably missing. I think that should be a new section - suggestions for a snappy title?
This section should include the obvious; The Nice and The Moody Blues. After that, most people have their pet ideas of who were most important - this is a can of worms. I actually agree that the Who were important, but so were Tomorrow, Touch, Organisation (later Kraftwerk), Sun Ra, Procul Harum, Kaleidoscope, The Zombies, 13th Floor Elevators, Electric Prunes, The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, Silver Apples, Fifty Foot Hose, White Noise, Graham Bond's Organisation (not the German group, but the group who probably used the Mellotron first), Johnny Almonds Music Machine... the list goes on.
Since there seems to be a propensity towards creating lists, maybe we should start tables of lists under the article sections - this would keep them out of the articles themselves, and ensure that Prog Rock fans see their favourite artists mentioned? Or am I being too indulgent? :o) MarkCertif1ed 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm content with that description of 'Court of the Crimson King' as being a defining moment in the realisation of the genre, as far as the public masses are concerned. This holds true for me, as long as the 'chicken and egg' scenario you refer to in your fine and thoughtful paragraph is given proper due. The point to emphasise is, "Court" may have seemed revolutionary, but without that egg? Crimson would not have existed in that form, without bands like 1-2-3, and that's also true of Yes and The Nice/ELP in particular. But in the public mind, it certainly was Crimson's very public entrance that announced the arrival of the genre. At least sticking to that solid fact could help us root the article on solid foundations, instead of being sidetracked as much as it has been by peripheral concerns - including mine! If we give full credence to the influences that led to Prog, then full attention to the influence it had in the latter part of the article, then the main body of the article could be given - properly - to the bands who truly constituted the genre. DaveEx 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Snappy title? How about using Mojo's article on 1-2-3? 'The Birth of Prog'? Could add some more group info in that new section too. Vanman404 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I've been considering exactly that on my talk page brain dump. The only reservation I have is that there seems to be a fairly popular feeling that Prog was born well before its more generally accepted birthdate. Still, that counts as a perfectly acceptable vote for - unless Mojo have an issue with another site using their title!
Not sure that more group info is needed, though, as you'd find that on the groups' pages.
I think it might be helpful to split "Core" (Crimson, ELP, Genesis, Yes) from the rest of the 1st wave (VDGG, Floyd, Tull, Gong, etc.) - but not sure if this constitutes POV or OR material. I think it's reasonable and without contention - and can be verified. It's just not documented as such, anywhere that I know of. MarkCertif1ed 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The point about the 'Birth of Prog' title is that 1-2-3 had much to do with that birth. There should be more reference to the influence the group had. Yet instead, reference to the group was deleted along the way among the edit wars. Note my comments on the trap of putting too much store on 'famous' groups. DaveEx 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mark's "chicken and egg" paragraph above. Emphasis should be given to ITCOTCK. No matter what we think hapenned before that or lead to that, notability must prevail in an encyclopedic article, and 1-2-3 and anything else that happened before ITCOTCK should be given no more than a short paragraph that sums up an idea about various influences. Core content should address King Crimson, Genesis, Yes and so on. --Childhood's End 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that point of view. I already said (above) that I think the King Crimson entrance was where the public perception lies. As long as 1-2-3 are given a fair mention for their influence on Yes/Crimson/Nice/ELP etc, that's fine. Read my earlier comments - the 'core' is fine by me, and draws the article back into proper focus. DaveEx 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the essence. As for 1-2-3, I could also agree, but only provided there is a reliable source to support that they did have such influence on these bands (unless this is not challenged by anyone). --Childhood's End 20:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been dumping ideas on this on my personal Talk Page - I think that the "Precursors" section is good, because it shows a historical rooting of the progression of music that concentrates on the innovations that later became incorporated into Progressive Rock. A single "History" section would get clogged up with all kinds of things in no time - I think it would be better to split it down and keep it specific.

What is needed, in my view, is a "Proto-Prog" section that will discuss the contributions of bands from about 1965 onwards (unless anyone can think of previous related innovations in rock), that will include references (not mentions!) of The Moody Blues, The Nice, The Beatles and as many bands (and their specific, verifiable) innovations that are relevant. This will probably include The Who, Tomorrow, Silver Apples, Fifty Foot Hose and White Noise among others.

I need some kind of source for 1-2-3, as I'm not familiar with their music, and information is really hard to find. All Google found for me was a single Wikipedia article with no online links, and somewhat dubious article references to what, on the surface, looks like journaslitic POV. The only other thing I could find was this; http://www.feenstra.co.uk/bands/ianellis/ianellis.htm, which isn't conclusive either. It's a bit difficult to credit a band when there are no recordings - the earliest seems to date from 1968, and that was a Clouds release called "Scrapbook". I can already think of more progressive precursors, such as the Byrds, Moodies, Beatles, (Graham Bond's) Organisation - particularly the latter, who were the (documented) first to use a Mellotron on the album "There's a Bond Between Us" in 1965.

Do you know of any recordings of 1-2-3?

Thanks MarkCertif1ed 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Little Tragedies

M.V.E.i. insists to have a reference to Little Tragedies (some Russian band that sings in Russia, in Russian) along the likes of Porcupine Tree and The Flower Kings in the 90's-200's section. I find that the contrast in notability is shocking and I tried to arrange a compromise by moving the reference to this band to the Festivals section [5], but he re-added LT again to the 90's-2000's [6]. I suppose the right way to go is to settle this here with community feedback. Any thoughts? --Childhood's End 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, i'll copy here what i said on your talk page, where i bring up the points:
I appreciate the cleanup you do now in the progressive rock article, nevertheless, there's something i dont agree with.
1. Moving the image of Little Tragedies to the festivals doesnt fit the section, why? Because the image was not taken at a festival but after a band's concert.
2. I on purpouse putted them to the 90's-00's section. Why?
a) They represent a "third-wave" 90's band.
b) They are the most famous prog-band in Russia and one of the most famous in Eastern Europian prog-bands. and by that...
c) They represent both the East-European and the not-English-speaking bands (and the genre is very alive their, it's just that the editors of the article in the English Wikipedia, well, most, think it exists only in the English speaking countries). M.V.E.i. 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok; as for the image, I would actually delete it (no reason to have an image of Little Tragedies in this article) but I would tolerate it in the Festivals subsection failing any more relevant image. As for the ref in the 90's-00's subsection, I oppose it because i- the other bands mentioned are way more notable whereas Little Tragedies has low notability, and ii- there are already too many band refs in this article, and including every non-notable bands that all editors like for some reason would make this article look ridiculous. Finally, the English Wikipedia is... English. This band sings in Russian. Perhaps there are also famous bands in Japan that sing in Japanese and so on, this would be no reason to include them. Sorry but we'd all like to see more text about our favourite bands, but a line must be drawn somewhere... --Childhood's End 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The images adds alot, images make the article look better, and they represent. They are more notable then all the third-wave bands noticed, the only one more famous on the list are Porcupine Tree. Maybe there are to many band referenced, but Little Tragedies should be noticed. Law notability? One of the most importent East-European progressive rock bands. There is no law that only English information should be entered here. They are not my favorite band (though they are really exellent), my favorites are the classic Russian rock and Pink Floyd, it's just that i know how notable and importent Little Tragedies are. M.V.E.i. 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We have 3 images as of now; Pink Floyd, Yes, and... Little Tragedies (!?). Images are usually used to visually represent the most important topics of an article. Please read Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. --Childhood's End 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In East Europe they have a status almost like Pink Floyd's in the west, and bigger then Yes's in the west. M.V.E.i. 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Even if this was true, the perspective has to be worldwide, not Western European... --Childhood's End 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In the third wave list their are many bands who are for example only American known. M.V.E.i. 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole 90s-00s section is in desparate need of a re-write to change it into a meaningful discussion in an agreed Wikipedia style, rather than yet another list.

I'm of the opinion that this should be two sections, as Prog Rock has become even more popular in the new millenium.

Once the section is properly written, maybe there should be some sort of list to follow it - but this list should be absolutely pertinent to what's popular and innovative.

Maybe user M.V.E.i. could start an article on Eastern European and/or Russian Prog that this page could link to? MarkCertif1ed 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, but not shure about the last one. First, now i lack the time to write it (while i had i created 14 articles, of them 13 connected to Rock music, and 11 of them connected to prog-rock). Second, it's an article about progressive rock in general so... why not to combine in it information about the whole world and scenes? But you are right about the 90's-00's section. I mean, you have nowhere to insert 00's prog bands unless it's prog metal, and the 90's once you have to add to the third wave list and we get a situation that what we have on the 90's is nothing but a list. The Russian rock article had the same problem, and i did there a thing that worked. I splitted the 90's-00's section to two sections: about the 90's, and about the 00's. Offcourse i re-wrote both of the sections and expanded. Anyway, it looks real good now :-) There's no reason why not to do that here, i mean, i proved it is good and that it works. M.V.E.i. 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Original use of "progressive rock" in Britain

deleted post for use in new suggested article.

MelodyMaker1969.2 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Source?

The word "Progressive" was used in conjunction with the "Cool" jazz movement of the late 1950s, then later applied to Blues bands, such as John Mayall's Bluesbreakers in the late 1960s - at which point in time, the word "Progressive" when applied to popular music became very fashionable. For example, the numerous DECCA "Progressive Blues" compilations, Johnny Winter's "Progressive Blues Experiment" and the compilation "Wowie Zowie, the world of Progressive Music", which included, among others, the fledgling Genesis.

I have yet to see an article that refers to "Progressive Rock" as a genre until around 1976, when it was used in articles on Punk music to describe the "progressive rock dinosaurs".

I will look at the album you refer to - although 1968 is too early to apply to the core Progressive Rock bands, and, as I said, the term "progressive" was common currency. It may be worth elaborating on this, if there is further referrable evidence from the time.

You've edited out the original question, which leaves this entirely without context - and a main point. Please refrain from editing discussions, as that loses continuity and focus.

Thanks MarkCertif1ed 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock Opera and "A Quick One While He's Away"

Rock opera and "A Quick One While He's Away" deserve mention in this article per Stuessy, Joe. Rock and Roll: Its History and Stylistic Development, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003. ISBN 0-13-099370-0[7], as well as uk.real.com[8], Amazon.com, Allmusic.com and progarchives.com[9]. If you're going to excise The Who from the Precursers section for being "Proto-Prog" then you might as well excise the Beatles, too. Both of their contributions are crucial. According to progarchives.com they are both proto-prog. That's why they're in the Precursers section. Proto-Prog is not the same as Not-Prog. Proto-Prog is a progressive rock subgenre per progarchives.com. Not-Prog would be something like Chuck Berry or Aerosmith, not The Who and the Beatles. Failing to mention the track that progarchives.com calls "the first prog epic" makes this a weaker article. Not a stronger one. 74.77.208.52 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ProgArchives does not call this the first prog epic - the author of the Who's biography (who I know very well) states that it could be considered as such - but offers no explanation as to why this might be the case, or any evidence - ie, it is purely his opinion. Biographies on Prog Archives are notoriously personal and opinionated - as I stated above.
None of those other links confirm what you're saying - the evidence you give is inconclusive. There are vague listings, most of which confuse Prog Rock with progressive Rock music - see my discussion.
Proto-Prog means "before Prog" - prototype Prog, or in other words, not Prog. Ask the guys there - the distinction is clear. Prog Archives says this:

Those links directly mention rock opera as falling under the umbrella of progressive rock. The evidence I give is as conclusive as it gets. Rock opera is progressive rock. See below for more. 74.77.208.52 19:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are rock operas which can fall under the umbrella of progressive rock, but certainly not all of them. At best, I would agree that 'most' rock operas used to be, or even are still, progressive rock works. --Childhood's End 19:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Prog definition

Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.

Following a recent conversation away from this discussion, I have edited some points which were not directly helpful to the discussion from this section with the agreement of the other party - who has an open invitation to correct me if my edits are misplaced. MarkCertif1ed 10:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new information for the Introduction

I propose that there is a small paragraph indiciating the difference between Progressive Rock or "Prog", and Progressive Rock Music - with a link to a new article on the latter.

This will explain briefly the difference between song-structure bands that improvised, like Led Zeppelin et al and those that worked outside of these standard structures and composed instrumental sections - ie, Prog Rock bands.

This may help to clarify misconceptions that people often have about Progressive Rock (or Prog). Comments and thoughts? MarkCertif1ed 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(cuts made by MarkCertif1ed Sept. 19, '07 [10]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childhoodsend (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that prog rock artists find inspiration in some classical composers does not make these classical composers progressive rock artists. Similarly, the fact that Dream Theatre or Genesis may have found inspiration in some works by The Who does not necessarily make The Who a progressive rock band. People like to believe that because a musical piece is original, it falls into 'progressive rock'. But hey, I must confess - what can legitimately be labelled progressive rock according to me is quite restrained (even Pink Floyd is out; they're no more than psychedelic to me). --Childhood's End 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The aim of the Precursers section, as I understand it, is to illustrate the musical innovations that led to what we call Progressive Rock. Progressive Rock didn't spring up out of nowhere. The Precursers section is filling in those gaps. It is not the aim of that section to define an artist as Progressive Rock. I don't think it is doing that. That section is filling in the gaps between the rock 'n' roll of artists like Chuck Berry and the Progressive Rock of a band like Genesis. There are a lot of stepping stones between those two points, and the Precursers section is touching on some of the more noteworthy ones. I think those rock artists are more relevant to the article than the musicians and composers from the beginning of the Precursers section, but there's no reason to not include them both. I believe it presents a fuller picture, making the article more informative. 74.77.208.52 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Following a recent conversation away from this discussion, I have edited some points which were not directly helpful to the discussion from this section with the agreement of the other party - who has an open invitation to correct me if my edits are misplaced. MarkCertif1ed 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1-2-3

don't know who exactly took out the piece on 1-2-3, but it's totally wrong that this was done. It's a fact that The Nice/ELP, Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, etc would not have taken the road the did without the influence of this group. What do you think MOJO meant by 'The Birth of Prog'? Check up on the history before deleting please. It seems my comments above went unheeded - what's the point of discussion if it's only an excuse for imposing your own point of view? DaveEx 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a verifiable fact or a POV? There were plenty of other influences on the above groups: Yes came from a different background to Crimson and Genesis (who admit to spending months in a barn listening to ITCOTCK before releasing Trespass). Yes' background is in standard 1960s hard rock, with some Beatles and Buffalo Springfield influences (particularly the vocal harmonies).
I couldn't find any interviews with Keith Emerson acknowledging this source of inspiration either - I'm not dismissing the band, we just need some facts here, as verifying this band seems next to impossible, and based on anecdotal references. MarkCertif1ed 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also in need of a reliable source to support 1-2-3's alleged influence. Provided there is one, I see no problem in ackowledging it through a short mention in the article. --Childhood's End 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Note your comments, but check the Clouds page and also the Clouds website - there are plenty of references to the influence, Q magazine, Mojo, David Bowie, several books etc. Regards the bands you mention, Crimson, The Nice etc watched the early Marquee shows. Check out what the Marquee programme said. Yes in particular were very much based on 1-2-3, taking other people's songs and making epics out of them - that's exactly what 1-2-3 did. Yes were a support band at the Marquee, doing covers of Beatles' songs, then even did Simon Garfunkel's 'America' straight after hearing 1-2-3 do it first. Keith Emerson didn't realise the potential of organ as a lead instrument till he saw Billy Ritchie standing and taking the lead role. That meant David O'List's days were numbered,though you won't ever hear Keith or Rick say it (though Blinky Davison did). 'Nut Rocker' also came from 1-2-3. Incidentally, the title of Jethro Tull's song 'Living in the past' comes from a line in the Clouds Scrapbook. Ask Terry Ellis. DaveEx 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be good to have online documented evidence of this - especially period docs - do you have articles you could scan and make available via an online file share or website?

The anecdotal stuff is all very well - but if people are likely to deny it, then that's not very helpful.

Without easy access, the references aren't very helpful, and it's difficult to get a response out of Terry Ellis - although I could ask Barrie Barlow :o)

I'm not trying to put obstacles in the way - rather I'm trying to get evidence together so that Joe Public could verify it, if he'd never heard of 1-2-3 or Clouds.81.86.167.10 17:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand and appreciate what you're saying, and some of the things I mentioned are very much anecdotal, but the articles and books are there in the public domain, and as I said, they are visible as references in the Clouds (60s rock band) wikipedia entry. You can see them and read them on the clouds website, www.cloudsmusic.com too. Also check with Matthew Hartington, he's the sponsor of the page, and has more direct input than I do on the subject. Though there again, I was at the Marquee in 67 and saw all this happen. Though of course, that's anecdotal again! DaveEx 18:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Wikipedia entry, but found it equally anecdotal. I also checked Emerson's entry in Wikipedia - which seem to have been mainly copied from VH1 or similar, with a Clouds reference pasted in at what looked like a good spot. On the surface, it looks like a wind-up, as Billy Ritchie is emphatically not as widely regarded a keyboardist (however unfair it may seem) as Banks, Wright, Wakeman or Emerson.

I found quite a bit of stuff - but nothing to verify anything to do with 1-2-3, which is the main area of interest, as this point rests largely with their musical output. I can't see 1-2-3 listed in the Marquee club's records, although they are listed in the Dumferline ballroom's - but information is scant.

Clouds are listed in the Marquee records - in 1968, of course, but 1-2-3 don't appear to be listed. The Nice and Emerson's former band, Gary Farr and the T-Bones appear numerous times - of course! This is odd, as there is evidence that 1-2-3 not only played there, but played regularly - including supporting (and band members jamming with) Jimi Hendrix.

Of course, http://www.cloudsmusic.com is the richest source - but obviously is going to have some bias. There are interesting scraps - but really, what's needed are recordings, or verification from influenced people that this was indeed a source.

More of my original research and internal musings may be found on my Talk Page. I'd like to assemble more, to get at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkCertif1ed#1-2-3_.2F_Clouds MarkCertif1ed 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry is far from anecdotal, it's completely referenced, and to a higher standard than this article here for a start. It's not my baby, but that's how I see it. And you're wrong about Billy Ritchie too, unless you discount the printed comments of David Bowie, Ed Bicknell (Dire Straits) etc etc, isn't that what you would call 'influenced people'? Any 'home' website is bound, as you say, to be biased, but the articles and book extracts are real enough, and if you read the content, you'll see plenty of references to 1-2-3. Didn't you read Bowie's letter to the Record Mirror for instance? As for the Marquee club records, they are at the mercy of the siteholder, and you can see quite clearly that the saturday night spots where 1-2-3 appeared have all been excised. 1-2-3 were a group who elicited either great admiration or outrage (and if you see websites like Amazon etc, they still produce wild reactions on both sides. Doesn't the fact that this is the case even after so many years, tell you something? Because the music was so far ahead of it's time, only musicians appreciated it, and even then, there was a lot of jealousy. But I was one of the musicians who did understand what they were trying to do, which is why I've 'stuck up' for them since I found these entries. They never got the credit they deserved, only in recent times - the past 10 years or so - has there been any acknowledgement. I certainly would totally oppose any removal of the reference. That to me would be pandering to the 'fame' syndrome. The fact is, most of these bands were not original at all, at least in the concept of what they did. Their achievement - and this applies to Emerson as well - was to take the idea and develop it further than the original could have done. DaveEx 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
RE THE MOCK MARQUEE

PS. This site calls itself the Marquee, but it's actually nothing to do with the Marquee club, it's purely a fan running a Marquee memories site, now that's what I CALL bias.....obviously, the feelings that 1-2-3 generated in this particular fan run deep, the wrong way. But as I said, doesn't that tell you something? When someone deliberately censors entries, they are trying to make their own version of history. What did I say about history being dependent on who was telling it? This is a particularly blatant example, the fact is, 1-2-3 were a very big group at the Marquee, only during a few months of 1967, but they created quite a stir, as the Marquee programmes make clear. This kind of negative rubbish and false reporting is one of the reasons 1-2-3 need support. The TRUTH needs support, and the facts are there. Read the entries again. DaveEx 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's agreed that sources can be flawed, hence my overall (natural) suspicion - and there are interesting fragments of real evidence around, but these are few and far between. The wild reactions on Amazon are very interesting - Prog seems to be full of such controversies!
The Bowie letter is interesting confirmation of his admiration for the band, but his description of the music is pidgin-academic and hence untrustworthy - "chromatic, quarter-tone and choral harmonics" confuses musical terms (I think he means harmonies, not harmonics, which are something entirely different - and tonal intervals and choral styles are different entities), and is not very descriptive - it's too "fluffy". Bowie doesn't state categorically that his music is influenced by 1-2-3, and it's hard to tell by listening to Bowie's early work, as there is no reference source.
I go into this in much more depth on my talk page, and there are many other bands that deserve credit, and my current research suggests that the notable ones are Fifty Foot Hose (US) and Delia Derbyshire (UK) - but they're more in the electronica and experimental fields. The symphonic, dramatic and acid-jazz aspects are intriguing - especially the latter, as acid-jazz seemed to spring from rock bands who were influenced by Miles/modern (progressive) jazz and the avant-garde composers - and also what was happening in the US.
It is difficult to ascertain exactly who influenced the bands we do know about, like the Nice, etc - and the Marquee link is clear between many of the bands I'd consider important (Floyd, Graham Bond, East of Eden, etc.,).
The evidence is still only anecdotal, though - I went through Cloud's website with a reasonably fine-toothed comb, and, although Clouds' music can be verified through recordings, it's the 1-2-3 stuff that's important to this article/discussion, because of the timing - and the one or two factual things that come out of the woodwork are very intriguing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkCertif1ed
I'm not removing stuff at the moment - I'd rather get the Precursors and Proto-Prog sections completed in essence and submit those, integrating the current references in a way that doesn't come across as dubious; I will also tidy up these entries to ensure that the overall format is coherent and matches Wikipedia's style guidelines.
Comments on my edits will be welcomed. MarkCertif1ed 07:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughtful approach, but I disagree about the 1-2-3 evidence being anecdotal - several major publications are quite specific about the influence, and all of that is on the website. Unless you mean that the bands themselves (who were influenced) haven't owned up to it. Now seriously, are they likely to?!!!! But plenty of fairly recent commentary refers directly to that influence. Then again, I'm not making a case for a vastly expanded paragraph on 1-2-3, the present one seems almost ok to me. The only other thing I'd personally add is a direct reference to the bands they influenced, Yes, The Nice/ELP, King Crimson, Genesis, Family, Soft Machine. All of that really happened at the Marquee in that short spell, it really was revolutionary. The music business thought so too, that's how they got signed by Epstein/Nems. Unfortunately, the music press didn't do their job at the time, and that's why we're having this debate. Plus of course, the lack of fame. Ultimately, this HAS to be an article about the famous bands, with the 1-2-3's of this world consigned to brief acknowledgements. That's life.

PS, I wasn't making a claim that Bowie was influenced, I was pointing out that he was impressed. That kind of evidence may not be directly relevant to 'influential', but it strongly suggests that something different and revolutionary was going on. Adding all these fragments may be somewhat anecdotal, but it sure adds up. And as I said, there are plenty of direct citations if you look closely enough. The only thing you won't find are comments from the bands who took the ideas in the first place. I wouldn't think that's very common, but perhaps that's what you're looking for. If you are, it's unrealistic. Most guys like that tend to quote influences out of their own sphere, eg, rock musicians praising jazz guys (usually obscure and black). DaveEx 10:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm really looking for are recordings - demo tapes... I won't say bootlegs, as obviously, no-one sensible or law-abiding would listen to a bootleg... but any recording of their music that confirms what the band were playing in 1967 - or better still, 1966.
The reported musical evidence is scant - interpretations of other's songs isn't too much to go on, especially as that's the core engine of many jazz bands, and one can only assume that pop groups also experimented with arrangements. I am struggling to think of pop/rock bands from 1966 or prior who elaborated on other's songs in such a fashion - although the Byrds do spring to mind.
As far as the harmonies go, Bowies comments are hard to accept. Clearly the group had some kind of jazz influence, and probably used modal harmonies, or possibly chromatic-sounding harmonies verging on the dischordant - but so did the Fugs and the Ethix in 1965-6 - and probably other psychedelic bands. To go on to talk about open harmonies is downright misleading - chromatic (and even more quarter-tone) harmony is close by definition.
I'd really like to know where 1-2-3 got their influences and ideas from too, for continuity - maybe the remaining members would be forthcoming (or even have sound desk tapes from the Marquee or even 2-track demos?). Are you in contact with them? If it turns out that their influences just happened to be the same as those cited by later bands, then we're onto something.
This is simply the level of detail I think in - not what will end up in the article - which is why I prefer to use my talk page for such extended discussions about what will undoubtedly end up as a passing reference. The point is to get at the truth and give verifiable credit where it is due and leave no room for doubt. It's not an impossible task. MarkCertif1ed 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very thorough (what you're trying to achieve), but it's asking a lot, and I don't see that thoroughness expressed anywhere else in Wiki either. Not that it isn't a laudable notion, I'm all for uncovering the truth. As for what 1-2-3 were like, I heard it. It was mainly well-known songs changed completely, new melodies in places, different time-signatures for pieces within each song, new pieces written in, lots of improvisational playing, jazz-like, you could say, though it was definitely rock, not jazz. I'd say that was one of the main things to say about Billy Ritchie, out of (what I would say were)the three leading players, Emerson, Wakeman, Ritchie, Ritchie was the only genuine Rock organist. And Harry was a very Jazzy drummer. Though it all merged and became something else, it had that bluesy base. The songs were mainstream a lot of the time, 'She's not there', 'Sweet Talkin Guy', but, as Bowie said about his song, they were changed radically, yet retained their heart and soul. This was a virtual blueprint for a band like Yes, but though they were trying to copy it, it came out differently somehow. As has been said, they took the pieces, but couldn't add the soul. Yes (in my opinion) lacked good taste and musical sense sometimes. And King Crimson was too self-indulgent (some of the time). None of these bands ended up sounding like 1-2-3. But it's crystal clear where the ideas came from, that's the point. I knew the guys back then, but I don't have any contact now. Matthew Hartington might be worth approaching, he sponsored the Clouds page. And I seem to remember a reference on the website about a live recording of 1-2-3 playing 'America' at the Marquee. Now that would be interesting to hear after all these years. DaveEx 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1-2-3 Live

Just heard the America track, great memories of the Marquee, and easy to see where The Nice/ELP/Yes/Crimson came from. Where they got the song from was par for the course for this group. Also Billy's virtual tracks - if that isn't genius, I don't know what is. DaveEx 09:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I get to buy 1-2-3 live? Can you help with that? Vanman404 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Early uses of 'progressive' to describe rock

deleted post for use in separate article as suggested - concerns difference between terms and possible separate pages.

MelodyMaker1969.2 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


All I've done so far is to elaborate on what was already here - what most people understand as Prog Rock.

The whole "what came before" is still in progress, and as you say, much of what was labelled by some as progressive music had plenty of other labels too, such as underground, art music, jazz-rock, folk-rock, blues-rock, psychedelic rock, etc.

Progressive Rock was an extremely uncommon term in the 1960s, and was only widely used in the 1970s. You also make this very clear by linking this term to the 1960s progressive music "movement" , as opposed to Prog Rock (the shortened term is quite convenient, as most understand it to mean something in itself).

It may be worth clarifying the difference - but this use is so transient (ie, few people use progressive rock in that sense any more) that it hardly seems worth it, especially given that no-one has yet found defining characteristics for 1990s or 2000s Prog Rock, or done any work on the second half of the article to stop it reading like a load of lists and more like something useful and interesting.

Personally, I think there should be a separate article called "progressive rock music" that can link to this page (Prog is a type of progressive rock music - the ultimate type, one might say!), and this can define the late 1960s-early 1970s "movement" and all the various offshoots. There are so many bands and so many approaches to rock music that this would be quite a lengthy article. I look forward to reading it. MarkCertif1ed 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush in first paragraph?

They were there in the past, but recently they have been removed. Now, I don't have a source off hand, but I think they deserve mentioning in the opening paragraph at least for their longevity, if more due to a large fan base and a collection of classic prog albums. Does anyone else have an opinion? --Joshua Boniface 01:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Progressive Rock Reconsidered, edited by Kevin Holm-Hudson, Rush's prog period started around 1976 and ended around 1979. It is noted that when Rush began in the late 1960s, it was primarily influenced by Cream and Jimi Hendrix and briefly turned into a cover band for same. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I listened to 2112, which is supposed to be their first true prog album. The title track certainly has prog influence, but they seem more influenced by metal. The lack of keyboards certainly argues against a strict prog definition, either. I also think that they come across as right-wing even if they intended not to. Repeating "Freedom isn't free" over and over again makes it hard to see them as Libertarian. I read about "2112" and wanted to be open to the song being not on the side of the guys in the temple, but the structure of the song makes it difficult to hear it any other way, and that's coming from someone who has both admired and written stories of someone who has gone up against the system and lost. The guitar guy comes across as an easily dismissable bug in the works.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarity in 80's revival

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but Genesis clearly did not "follow" Asia's lucrative example in 1983. Genesis had been changing ever since losing Peter Gabriel, and soon after, Steve Hackett. The 1978 album "And Then There Were Three" clearly shows the band striving for shorter songs and a more accessible style. Genesis' breakthrough on the American charts was the song "Misunderstanding" from the Duke album, and the next album, Abacab, accelerated their breaktrhough with songs like the title track, "Man on the Corner", and "No Reply At All". Phil's monster hit "In The Air Tonight" also helped their transition, and all this was before Asia released their album.
Furthermore, other prog bands like Yes were also clearly transitioning in the late 70s/early 80s, or floundering (anybody remember ELP's "Love Beach"? Anybody WANT TO?) If anything, Asia was the result of prog bands' transitioning to more commercially successful music, not the precursor of it.
Can we consider a rewrite of this section?
Macsnafu 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Love Beach isn't THAT bad. It has a few good tracks. The biggest problem with it is that it's mostly retread. The best track is a rearrangmenet of a classical piece. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change: 'polyrhythm' to 'polymeter'

In the section about musical characteristics, subsection rhythm, I changed layering polyrhythms to layering different meters (polymeter) and linked the article. Also I added '(metric modulation)' after 'time-signatures changes'. First, layering polyrhythms was obviously a pleonasm, as poly implies layering. Second, there is a distinction between polyrhythm and polymeter: polyrhythm can refer to non-tactus-preserving-polymeter as found in classical music, or it can refer the layering of different rhythms which you find absolutely everywhere, e.g. when - in a staight 4/4, one voice sounds 4 4ths and another sounds 1 half note and two 4ths... What is obviously meant is 'tactus-preserving polymeter' when e.g. a 13/8 is played over a 7/8, as in King Crimson's Frame by Frame. - MikeB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.111.10 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Deleted Entry re 1-2-3

I deleted the entry (by Matthew Hartington) re History of 1-2-3. Sorry Matthew, much as I support your intentions for Clouds/1-2-3, the rather long-winded inclusion here was, I think, far too much for the subject - Progressive Rock. I think enough has been said about 1-2-3 for the purposes of the article. I see you've added the piece to the Clouds talk page, that covers enough ground. DaveEx 06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The genre of progressive rock listed on 30 Seconds to Mars's wikepedia page

In the wiki page for the band 30 seconds to mars the genre "progressive rock" is listed. I have tried to remove it many times and have given reasons is the discussion page on how it does not fit, but one user is determined that it does and refuses to change it. I would appreciate it if I could get backup on my arguement and have other users to give him convincing proof that he is wrong. Zanders5k 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I am moving my response to the 30 Seconds to Mars page, where this discussion rightfully belongs.
Enfestid 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"a small cut of neo-prog bands catered to a faithful audience"

How silly. This line exists for no reason other than to make it appear that progressive is a relic, old hat, and that its fanbase consists of ultra-traditionalists in their upper 40's. This is ridiculous. I don't see why I should even need to point out the existence of Dream Theater, Porcupine Tree, Oceansize, the Mars Volta, Tool, 3, Between the Buried and Me, Opeth, Muse, etc... 64.91.223.174 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Subgenres

Why is Jazz Fusion listed in the infobox as both a "stylistic origin" and a "subgenre"? Jazz fusion is most certainly not a subgenres of Progressive rock. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it could certainly be argued that jazz fusion and progressive rock often overlapped in the 70s. Dalkaen 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly agree with that. But, it cannot be both a "stylistic origin" and a "subgenre". Can it? I do not know of any critic who calls jazz fusion a subgenre of prog rock. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Bands??

there is a mention of three notable swedish bands that supposedly "kicked off" the third wave of prog, this is crap, i dont think they are as relevant as to be mentioned as some of the notable third wave bands, since they are not as popular as Dream Theater or Mars Volta, so i'll clean up this section.

Er, I find they're perfectly notable; you'll see them discussed in progressive rock communities quite frequently. Dalkaen 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant and sourced material

There is an editor who keeps deleting Scaruffi's comments on the decline of prog in the mid-1970s. here. This is a well-documented part of the history of prog and should be in there for completeness. If there is a good reason not to have this section in the article, I'm open to argument, but it would be dishonest to pretend it didn't happen, which is the effect of these deletions. Hence, I am bringing this here to achieve a consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


  • (I apologize in advance for any English mistakes).

I considered editing this myself in a few weeks (when I'll get my copies of some books on prog for accurate reference) although I never contributed anything to Wikipedia before, except some very minor changes. But that section is disturbing enough for me to want to take the trouble and edit it (I'm not the one deleting it though, never touched it yet). I think practically placing the "blame" for the decline of prog on ELP (that's the impression the reader gets) is very narrow and even naive (not to mention biased). This section completely ignores central factors such as the social context and climate surrounding Progressive Rock and the Punk backlash, the ideology of rock (most explicitly or extremely expressed in the writings of critic Lester Bangs who considered even the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper" pretentious and self indulgent. But rock ideology wasn't limited to Bangs), economic factors that influenced the record companies to perhaps prefer simpler and less expensive music, the changes of policy and structure in radio stations (that became more formatted and demanded 3 minutes hit songs), not to mention just natural change of guards and generation (it was a part of pop music after all, every trend in pop lasts but a decade). This section doesn't mention any of these, although at least the social context is quite well known. Instead it basically scapegoats one band as the "rotten apple" that spoiled it for everyone - it is an opinion I've heard before, but certainly not the only hypothesis. I wouldn't call it "well-documented", nor thorough, deep or comprehensive. Regrading Scaruffi - his book on rock is available online although I'm not sure it's the entire text, but from what I read he is definitely not the most authoritative source on the genre as it takes only a chapter in his book, unlike authors who focused their research on progressive rock. His comments about ELP cited in the article were not part of an attempt by him to analyze what led to the decline in popularity of the genre, but are just his own opinion on ELP in general. And with all due respect there are other, not less qualified and authoritative opinions on ELP's music, such as those of its most meticulous biographer Edward Macan (who is a musicologist and a musician, not less qualified). Scaruffi's utter dismissal of any merit to the entire work of ELP is just his opinion and his understanding or evaluation of the music, an opinion maybe shared by some on this board, but still just an opinion. To cite this as the only expert opinion, taken out of its original context and placed in the context of the decline of prog, does paint a very one-sided picture and in my opinion, also a very superficial analysis.

What I was thinking of doing is not removing Scaruffi's quotes, but rather balance them with quotes from other sources, and most importantly, include reference to other hypotheses, maybe more common and probably more thoroughly researched, regarding the decline. But you know what? On second thought, I'm glad someone had the audacity to simply remove them because it's just not right to take his extreme opinion on ELP and place it in this context in such a way that makes it look almost like a fact that ELP almost single-handedly brought the entire genre down because its music stunk. It just wouldn't meet any academic criteria, would it?

But it'll probably take me months to get the books I need (it's import and it costs). So maybe someone can write some reservations or otherwise make it a bit more balanced? - Debby 80.230.85.226 (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Festivals

That section should be looked over, it looks messy and essentially like a concealed list. Also, why is only ProgPower USA mentioned? ProgPower started in Europe, after all! Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Keith Goodwin

I tried to provide a citation regarding Keith's involvement with the 1980's progressive rock movement, but this was removed as being "promotional puffery" or whatever. So perhaps someone can help explain how this can be worded so as not to offend anyone as I think it's important to stress Keith Goodwin's impact on this time period. Let me first state that Keith was the press agent for Yes, Black Sabbath, Rod Argent, Vangelis, etc. back in the 1970's. During the 1980's many of the bands mentioned relied on his connections and insight, most notably Marillion. Indeed, on Fish's web site he wrote a lengthy eulogy and provided, what I thought was, all the information necessary to cover the original request for "citation needed" (see Fish: a eulogy to Keith Goodwin ). At least a dozen bands of that period would happily cite Keith Goodwin as representing them and having a major influence on the level of success that each managed to receive. Keith also wrote the foreward in the book that is mentioned on this site (and many prog rock web sites) "The Progressive Rock Files" by Jerry Lucky, as well as being mentioned within this book during the timeline of bands it refers to. Perhaps I have not approached writing this succinctly within the bounds of approval of others, so I instead ask that someone else try their hand at this. Or coach me into what someone needs when they say "citation needed". I'm open to learning, especially as I think it's a travesty that there is a glaring omission on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.132.10 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the article is about the music and not how the bands achieved fame. Press agents etc abound in the music industry, before and after prog, without being mentioned here, so it would have to be shown that Goodwin was extremely, if not vitally important, to the success of these bands, which I think is the hurdle to be overcome. Compare, say, Max Clifford, with his clients; and then take any other publicist and ask whether s/he is as well-known as his clients. Rare, indeed. You'd have to make a strong case, supported by reliable third-party sources, to put Goodwin into this article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Rodhullandemu. Fair enough I see your point -- of course there are many others that are involved. I think with respect to that 1980's period, many of those bands mentioned here (and many others not mentioned too) found themselves under the guidance of Keith that was a defining attribute in their success relative to his input. The page I cited is from the lead singer of the most successful of bands from that period: i.e. Fish of Marillion. This is his web site, and that is his account of how critical Keith Goodwin was to their success (as well as many others). Here are a few quotes from Fish:

"There are so many artists out there who would not have received even the slightest acknowledgement or encouragement in their careers without the voice of passion and belief that was Keith Goodwins. Some of us came through; others disappeared in a blaze of obscurity. Keiths integrity was never however questioned." "How do you encompass a range of artists he loved and worked with as diverse as Dusty Springfield/ Stan Kenton/ Vangelis/ Yes/ Black Sabbath and of course Marillion through whom Keith had become one of my best friends, a spiritual guide, a mentor, a teacher and someone whom without which I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that I would not have become the artist or the person I am today" Of all the bands of that 1980's period, I think this carries a lot of weight. The truth is that some of the other bands achieved a lot more with his involvement. There are other sites that make mention of Keith in this light too: http://www.landmarq.net/lenl/lenl66.htm http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=724 http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Music/Marillion-4414.html I guess my claim is that the reason why the 1980's rock revival made more than a light ripple in the water is because Keith was a diehard that made sure these bands got the best he could offer. I think that is backed up by Jerry Lucky's decision to have Keith write the foreward in his book "The Progressive Rock Files". I am pretty sure that Jerry would say that Keith has as much right, if not more, in appearing on this page -- at least with respect to that 1980's period. Perhaps there is a way to make that reference without it getting as wordy as it became. I tried to keep it short, but a citation was needed. By providing a citation, it became long. Hopefully there's a happy medium that we can agree upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.132.10 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History

I have not been involved in this article for some time, only to find that the History section is now a disaster area. Who cares so much about "music critic Piero Scaruffi"? He and a few people may think that The Beatles played the larger role in prog rock birth, but that's really giving too much attention to a fringe point of view imo. This section should be focused on King Crimsom, Genesis, Yes and a few others, as it used to be. And I'm not saying this because they're my favourite bands, quite the contrary. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_rock/Archive_1&oldid=1137100418"