Other Players

RRHoF Discovers New Form of Music!

1

...50 years on. Specifically, "prog."

Apparently having run out of other topics to flog in order to remind us it's there during the long months of Covid, the hallowed hall has belatedly deigned to recognize the very music they've mocked, derided, or ignored for decades (at least until they ran out of B-level roots rockers and rappers to exalt and cynically threw it a few honorary bones).

Better late than never, or thanks for nothing, Cleveland?

Read all about it here.

But really. To suggest seeing the music through the lens of its occasional references to fantasy literature? Could they be more reductive, insulting, clichéd? Could they more widely miss the mark? Under that reading, where's Led Zeppelin? Where's Demons and Wizards?

Goobers.

To be fair, they acknowledge that "prog" (a word I've come to despise) has been frequently savaged by critics - though they manage to omit their - and Rolling Stone's - roles in marginalizing the music. [Note: this paragraph is not me being fair to the HoF, it's me mocking the notion that they've attempted here to be fair by admitting the mainstream rock press's 40-year history of hostility.]

But to be fair (and this is me being fair to the HoF), the rest of the article after the ungrammatical, deftly euphemistic, disingenuous, historically revisionist and still faintly demeaning smarm of...

During its long history Prog has generated a certain level of conflict between journalist and critics who describe the style as bloated and self-indulgent, and the diehard fans who listen to every details of the music, follow every aspect of the elaborate stories, and create a positive musical community...

is actually a pretty factual and balanced outline of at least the gestation, evolution, and development of the "genre". It's so brief and and bullet-pointy as to be the TLDR version of a more substantive version I never expect to see from the RRHoF, but it's fine as far as it goes.

Shame it doesn't go so far as to mention Gentle Giant, Focus, Procol Harum, Van der Graaf Generator, any of the bands from the Canterbury scene - or Deep Purple's and Uriah Heep's early proggy efforts.

Or to single out something as seminal (more revolution than evolution) as "21st Century Schizoid Man." Or "Whiter Shade of Pale"'s monumental status as not only an early prog masterpiece, but a monster pop culture monolith.

Or the substantial prog component in the music of The (Dixie) Dregs. (OK, admittedly obscure.)

But how'bout the prog renaissance master Roine Stolt and The Flower Kings' 22 progressively paradisiacal albums since the 90s, not to mention his recent collaboration with Jon Anderson - which would have been an opportunity for a nice passing-the-baton metaphor to end the article.

I'd like to call the article sophomoric, but it's not inclusive nor expansive enough to qualify for a slur suggesting a kind of rudimentary mastery still wet behind the years.

Actually, it barely serves as the outline of a syllabus for Prog Rock 101.

But the article does seem to avoid any howling inaccuracies, and stands (shakily) as a skeletal outline to sketch out the territory. If its very functoriness is a bit of an insult at this late date, at least it's something. If someone had truly never heard of any of this music, it might make enough of an introduction to invite more interest.

To that extent, OK. Maybe the current generation of RRHoF management and curators is not infected by the jaundice of the grand old self-appointed arbiters of taste who dictated the Hall's contents for decades. Maybe the current establishment there is open-eared, open-minded, and open-handed enough to begin to give this music its due alongside other hyphenated versions of rock. I'll give them the benefit of that much doubt.

But I can still chuckle at it.


As a last thought, I think I'll withdraw the benefit of the doubt. Any organization that claims for itself the authority to decide on authenticity and cultural significance - and in 2020, 51 years on, can manage not to include King Crimson among its inductees - remains as much a (bad) joke as ever.

Goobers.

2

Prog rock does come with an assumed pre judgement. I think of it primarily as a Brit thing... Crimson, ELP, Yes, all being prime movers in the field. Clearly plenty of others lesser knowns...Strawbs(?) I wasn't big on it, but was open minded enough to listen to some.

At least they tried to do something new after the blues rock binge of a few years earlier. Then I guess punk rock came to counter what they thought was tedious pretense in prog rock. Then maybe New Wave, to be something a big more intellectual than screaming punk. Just a guess.

I don't know what goes on the rock world today or if it even exists -- to me it just seems like the rock guitar world can't get past Hendrix @ -50 years, rock music can't get past Led Zep @ -40 years, etc. Not that they weren't innovative / talented, etc . Maybe the blame is with so called "classic rock' radio format. At least FM stations back in the day played new and different stuff like the prog-ers were doing. Would not happen now.

Again there's blame a-plenty cast in that book The Rise and Fall of FM Rock Radio"

3

Prog rock does come with an assumed pre judgement. I think of it primarily as a Brit thing... Crimson, ELP, Yes, all being prime movers in the field. Clearly plenty of others lesser knowns...Strawbs(?) I wasn't big on it, but was open minded enough to listen to some.

At least they tried to do something new after the blues rock binge of a few years earlier. Then I guess punk rock came to counter what they thought was tedious pretense in prog rock. Then maybe New Wave, to be something a big more intellectual than screaming punk. Just a guess.

I don't know what goes on the rock world today or if it even exists -- to me it just seems like the rock guitar world can't get past Hendrix @ -50 years, rock music can't get past Led Zep @ -40 years, etc. Not that they weren't innovative / talented, etc . Maybe the blame is with so called "classic rock' radio format. At least FM stations back in the day played new and different stuff like the prog-ers were doing. Would not happen now.

Again there's blame a-plenty cast in that book The Rise and Fall of FM Rock Radio"

– DCBirdMan

A lot of the rock situation on radio, is due to the fact that so many FM stations are corporate owned. The Baby Boomers (which I am not - I'm early Gen X [born in 1963]) are the ones with the money, hence the rock music caters them, which means mid 60s through the 70s to at the latest (IMO) 1981. Classic rock is cool, but, it's the same overplayed songs I've heard since I was a Sophomore in high school in 1979, that I got sick of hearing in the 80s. Unfortunately, most rock radio around here is classic rock oriented, or if they're feeling "adventurous", 80s rock & new wave.

As a result, I listen to one of the few independent radio stations in the area (when I listen to the radio), WMSE (the Milwaukee School of Engineering's radio station). Due to their free form format (the DJs make their own song lists, not some corporate wonk), I don't always hear what I like (I don't care for hip hop, electronica, etc.), but there are some cool radio shows (the Shape of Rock, for example which showcases modern rock during my Tuesday morning commute to work), where I've heard some newer bands I did not know about. For instance, Caspian, an instrumental rock band I heard for the first time, on WMSE.

4

As a proper boomer, I started thinking of music that seemed to be trying to make music new and interesting, progressive. When the Beatles came out it was new and exciting but when they progressed beyond the teenage love songs, I thought it was quite progressive. I assumed that that was what it was supposed to do. To me, everything grew out of that. The Zombies, The Kinks, then the Iron Butterfly, Hendrix, Cream, they each were pushing the limits and inventing new things. This is what I called being progressive, not a genre but a mission to move music ahead to the more adventurous and that momentum allowed for Yes, Tull, King Crimson, ELP, and the like, the stuff that, decades later, people looking back called “prog rock”. I guess it’s people’s nature to pigeonhole stuff.

5

I thought baby boomers ended in 1964

There probably are some cool bands now I don't know about.

I don't even think classic rock radio plays much late 60s stuff anymore. With them it all starts in 1969 with Led Zep. The most overplayed US 1970s band (approx 1973-79) is the Eagles and most overplayed UK band Led Z (1969-80)

But as a mid period boomer, my tastes changed long ago so the classic rock format just doesn't suit my tastes any longer.

6

Prog rock does come with an assumed pre judgement.

Well, it does - but from my perspective, having been there when it first emerged, that judgment was handed down by jaundiced and lazy critical consensus which only emerged several years after the subgenre's early heyday. It had nothing to do with the original reception of the music by us listeners.

It's easy to think the American rock press derided prog for incorporating something other than slavish repetitions and development of American roots forms - but the truth is that the British musical press savaged it even more completely (based on what objection I've forgotten), so that most "prog" bands were bigger here than in their homeland.

And yeah, the music started out largely British. I suppose it was partly responsive to American psychedelia and, apparently, Pet Sounds, but mostly following on the Beatles' experimentation, and incorporating all the classical and liturgical influences which were every bit as rootsy in Europe as the blues and rock & roll were in the US.

If you wanted to get racial in judgments of "authenticity", and overly sensitive to matters of cultural appropriation, you might say the British proggers had more of a legitimate "right" to classical and church forms than American white kids had to the blues - as certainly the English kids grew up with those influences.

But the whole stew was ultimately gloriously catholic (in the lower-case, meaning blindly inclusive), as even the progging Brits were as inspired by - and included as many elements of - the American forms they idolized as they did of the older Euro traditions. At a pre-gig Q&A, Patricia Fripp was asked about Robert's earliest musical heroes and influences, and the first name she came up with was Elvis. KC also self-consciously incorporated both the improvisational techniques and many of the tropes of be-bop and modern jazz (though it was so transformed it certainly wasn't obvious to young listeners).

Anyway, the point I have to make over and over relative to "prog" is that even that term was a product of later analysis: the pejorative sense it quickly acquired was not inherent from its first use. I don't recall the first time I read the term, but it was clearly intended just to characterize a wide variety of musical experimentation in which rock was, literally, "progressing" - not to disparage it.

And in fact, musically and in appeal to its first listeners (including me), the music which was eventually tarred with the prog brush seemed a direct outgrowth/progression from the Beatles, psychedelia, early Brit blues-rockers (say, Cream on the Wheels of Fire studio disk), Zappa, Hendrix, The Doors, et al. It happened right alongside Tommy, Zeppelin and the earliest stirrings of metal. It was part and parcel with concept albums and "rock operas." It was not seen as some separate, lesser thing, nor were its practitioners accused of being somehow "inauthentic" or "insufficiently rock & roll."

Virtually everyone I knew played their prog albums right alongside the Allman Brothers, Grateful Dead, Mott the Hoople, Deep Purple, Grand Funk, Black Sabbath, Bowie - and any other music of the day which seemed "underground" because it didn't dominate AM radio. And yet plenty of what in retrospect falls under the detested prog rubric was huge on the radio, and widely accepted by a huge cross-section of listeners. I'll argue the admittedly debatable position that Steppenwolf included some progressive elements, as did, oh, say "Journey to the Center of the Mind", "Eight Miles High", and even "Walk Away Renee".

But "Strawberry Fields," "I Am the Walrus," "Whiter Shade," "White Rabbit," "White Room," "Nights in White Satin," "Anyone For Tennis" (among others I know I'm forgetting) were proggy before they were so damned. Then "Roundabout" and "Lucky Man" (maybe the first folk-rock synth rave-up), "Frankenstein," and "Hocus Pocus" were inescapable even on the AM dial in their day. I think Yes was the biggest touring act in the world for a year or two.

By '72-'73, it was possible to lump some of these bands together under terms that attempted to describe what made them different and set them apart. I remember "symphonic rock" and "classical rock" being bandied about before "prog" became a critical (and then derogatory) term. I knew people who didn't like some of these bands (including one guy who considered Yes "bubblegum"!), but none who considered them somehow inauthentic or not properly belonging in the rock "canon." They were just part of the overall variety developing as "rock."

And the tail end of that first "prog" era (say, 1973-1977) overlapped and dovetailed with what was eventually damned as "fusion." (Another term that was originally intended to be purely descriptive, characterizing the musical alchemy of blending a couple of genres - then quickly became an insult.)

It wasn't at all clear at the time how Mahavishnu Orchestra and Return to Forever differed from, say, Gentle Giant. Yeah, some "fused" more jazz elements with rock tropes, and others incorporated more purely European traditions. But the exuberant, liberating miscegenation of every form of music with every other form of music - infinite variety in infinite combination - was common to both, and was, I think, understood even by cultural critics of the time to be a natural artistic outgrowth of the general free-everything gestalt of the hippie era.

And then, at some point, there came a backlash from those who felt the need to preserve the cultural "purity" of the progressive fusion represented by the first generation of rock & roll. They started to circle the wagons around the musical miscegenation of the mid-50s - that collision of blues and hillbilly country - and define that as real rock & roll, and anything that ventured too far afield as...not.

Oddly, the first time I became aware of such a schism between "rootsy enough" rock - and the wider variety of forms then proliferating - was in 1974 or 1975. I was in college in central Ohio, and lived in the same housing with one James Henke, who went on to a career with Rolling Stone and became the first curator of the RRHoF. We both played guitar, and tried once or twice to jam together. He was the first guy I knew who set "prog" and "fusion" outside the pale of true rock & roll in what I now recognize was an attempt to protect the identity of the music. I didn't understand then why he wanted to do so, and I still don't.

Though I clearly got the sense he and his habitual jam buddies and music-critical clique considered themselves cool - and those of us who listened more widely decidedly uncool.

WHUTever.


Queen (along with Blue Oyster Cult and Captain Beyond, who emerged at the same time) is an interesting bridge between worlds. It was still a time where there wasn't a clear line between prog and metal, and all three bands included elements of both. Queen became huge beyond huge - the others didn't - presumably on the strength of Freddie's voice and charisma, the variety and hook-depth of the songwriting, Brian's tone and musical sense, and the distinctive power of the rhythm section.

Maybe thanks to short songs, mostly up-tempo and guitar-forward (the first couple of albums included a wry note that "no one played keyboards"), the band largely escaped being prog-branded - even when they started progressing in multiple directions at once, and when albums included longish, intricate, massively overdubbed guitorchestral suites. And how "Bohemian Rhapsody" can be considered anything but prog, I don't know.

Nonetheless, the band was consistently panned by rock critics, though in retrospect (and given their subsequent permanent ascension to the rock Olympus), it's hard to see why.

Predictably, when Henke accompanied and covered Queen during a South American gig or two, he alternated between disparaging the band and expressing resigned credulity that they were as big as they were. Here's his article. Maybe he just couldn't hear the obvious firepower of virtually every weapon in the band's arsenal.


I mean, likewise Pink Floyd, amirighterwhut? From psychedelia through various experiments like Umma Gumma and "Echoes" (and why isn't fusing folk with hard rock considered fusion?) to the unexpected massive success of Dark Side to the epic rock-opera juggernaut that was The Wall... was it only that outsize latter-day success that largely powered Floyd's eventual critical acceptance, despite being prog-flogged?

And I mean latter-day. Pink Floyd had been around since 1967, but between Syd's spinout and the band's slow development through another seven albums, they were nowhere on anyone's radar when Dark Side emerged in 1973. This was six years after prog's first recognizable stirrings and four years after its "official" birth, durn near the end of its most fertile period, and just about when it was seen as having gone over the edge into self-indulgent excess. It was just about when the critical bash reached the critical mass which poisoned perceptions for decades thereafter.

To say Dark Side came as a surprise is an understatement. While in retrospect you can hear the connection between it and their previous couple of albums, no one was expecting anything so fully realized from Pink Floyd. Dark Side's relatively succinct, clearly strummin-chord or riff-based songs, their melodies, and the subject matter were enough to win wide acceptance among listeners of all interests. I reckon that carried the proggier elements (it's a suite, it includes ear-tickling trippy synth-happy music concréte of "On the Run," there's that 7/8 bit, etc) over the threshold into critical acceptability.

By comparison, Yes's 1973 release was Tales from Topographic Oceans. Regardless its acceptance by fans, there's no denying that its 4-sided, one-song-per-side structure and abstruse, Andersonically garbled "spiritual" concept could only play right into the punk rock backlash soon to be unleashed.

I'll maintain that some great prog was made between 1973 and the end of the decade - but its first creative force was largely spent, and the masterpieces of that lame duck era (like King Crimson's Larks Tongues-Starless-Red trilogy, ELP's Brain Salad Surgery and Works, Procol Harum's Grand Hotel and Exotic Birds and Fruit, Genesis' output - especially, I guess, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway [though I'm no big fan] - and anything Gentle and Giant) didn't have much commercial or pop-cultural impact.

Exception to that generalization might include the proggier tracks from Zep's Houses of the Holy - and 1975's "Kashmir" from Physical Graffiti, which Ah swar tew gawd is both proggy enough AND widely acclaimed.

Otherwise, though, the punk explosion of the back half of the 70s and the new-wave/synth-band thang of the early 80s pretty much buried the remains of the original proggers.

Which makes 1979's The Wall perhaps the last great breath of the expiring dinosaur, full of appropriate imagery and a dramatic arc aptly portraying just how and where prog had progressed. Typically, the album was originally slammed by critics - though I don't recall if the progword came up. And then it got huger than huge, and critical appraisal eventually had to align itself with pretty much universal popular opinion.

Likewise, the band got so epically huge, it would have been utterly ludicrous to deny them fairly timely induction into the rockhall.

And still - and perhaps characteristically - even at this late date, I find Pink Floyd more often described as "classic" rock than "prog." It's like the term itself is poison, and those who consider the album the masterpiece it is can't accept that they like something considered progressive - or they don't want to prejudice the nascent opinions of their readers by smearing the progword all over it.


As a last musing (and a-musing) observation, there's another strain of hyphenated rock which progressed and fused in the late 60s and early 70s and totally resisted the stain of either term - and which was equally embraced by listeners and the mainstream rolling-stoney rock-hally critical community.

That, of course, is country-rock. Ha!

So I'm almost safe when I listen to Wake of the Flood - but, durn, doesn't it get a little jazzy and proggy?

7

Who pays attention to labels?

Even more, who pays attention to the RRHOF?

8

Who pays attention to labels?

Even more, who pays attention to the RRHOF?

– wabash slim

I was about to say, isn’t the RRHOF kinda like the Hollywood Walk of Stars? Something for tourists? Announcing a new category sounds like a plea for lost attention. They should have Ricky Gervais MC the next induction show. THAT would garner some attention.

9

Who pays attention to labels? Even more, who pays attention to the RRHOF?

Well, I don't - but clearly I do. If that institution survives into the future, like it or not it will have an influence on what posterity thinks and understands about the music of "our time." (Half a century ago now. I think about my understanding in the 70s about the music of 50 years before that, like you know...the 20s - and realize how my perception of that era long before my time was shaped by visits to museums and the like.)

I realize - or I hope - that posterity will continue to have access to the internet, and that it's possible to ferret out a much more rounded, diverse, and inclusive view of previous musical era by diligent digging and progressive rabbit-hole traversal. But that still doesn't preclude a hope that brick-n-mortar physical institutions might tell a more balanced story of the musical times.

Announcing a new category sounds like a plea for lost attention.

Huh! It would it if that's what they're doing. But I don't think there's any new category. This outreach simply gathers together links to the hall's current prog collection. Nothing so grand as a real commitment to correct past bias.

10

With a certain sense of irony, I just noted that I am reading this thread while watching PBS- the Neil Diamond Hot August Night III concert.

I may need therapy.

11

Well, at least you're not bitter!

12

og progger here

start with early pink floyd...syd (with his binson echorec) or david g (with his binson echorec)... maestro fripp's king crimson...tron!... mike oldfield-side long tunes that sold! ...his records kickstarted virgin records!!...next i go for more obscure...-the soft machine- (& offshoots)...uk eclectic jazz/prog/rock splendor...

tho not prog per se, zappa was a huge influence..his instrumental composed stuff...lumpy gravy..uncle meat...many european prog bands started from there...supersister, samla mammas manna, henry cow, hugh hopper, faust

cheers

13

Well, at least you're not bitter!

I know! It's remarkable, innit?

14

Prog seems to be a slippery label that I can't get my head around. As a pejorative, it seems to be aimed at bands like Yes/Genesis/ELP/King Crimson/etc. But when I used to work at independent record stores in the 90s, the word prog was used to encompass a way wider variety of bands. So I have a couple of questions for the prog folks here: Are the following bands under the progressive rock label or no?

  • Can and Neu!
  • Hawkwind and offshoots like the album Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters
  • Henry Cow
  • AMM
  • Magma
  • Amon Düül
  • or how about weirdo, late 70s bands like MX80 Sound or This Heat?

Also, does prog's classical leanings have to come from the romantic period and prior, or do bands with a sound pulled from modernist and postmodern periods also fall under the prog umbrella?

15

As a pejorative, it seems to be aimed at bands like Yes/Genesis/ELP/King Crimson/etc.

Yeah, and it's precisely my point that the term was not derogatory when first applied simply as an adjective to music by such artists.

Are the following bands under the progressive rock label or no?

To me they are - particularly under the term's original meaning.


As a first-gen progger, I can only have my perspective.

Prog for me was originally a natural progression from the pop of the 60s. When its first formative wave petered out through the 70s, it seemed equally natural to me to move along to fusion, The (Dixie) Dregs, 80s attempts to extend prog such as the first UK album, the Bill Bruford Band, and any operation including Allan Holdsworth, etc. I also willingly embraced Yes's arguably poppier turn with Trevor Rabin - and I think the 80s edition King Crimson richly met the original, positive definition of prog without borrowing anything from the 70s.

Peter Gabriel's 80s work - along with Kate Bush's, and Godley & Creme's, and Roxy Music, and even the Talking Heads and DEvo - while bearing little resemblance to the "classic prog" of the 70s, seemed "progressive" in its original sense. I liked it.

I had no interest in punk when it emerged, and while metal had its rippin' good technical soloists, some of whose work inspired me - and though I worked in music retail and played in bands through the 80s and was thus aware of what was going on - the hair band cartoonery lost my attention as the 80s wore on. I was no longer the 14-30 year old male the industry still pursued.

In the 90s I left the music business, moved away from my musical community for a different career, and was only vaguely aware of what was happening in mainstream rock through those years. I continued to follow the latter-day output of artists I'd always liked - but I didn't feel as driven to seek out new music as I had when younger. With the fracturing of even FM radio and the subsequent proliferation of micro-genres - around the time you were working in record stores - I missed the consciously retro "new prog" revival as well as many of the European bands you mention.

I did, however, pick up that thread several years ago and start a listening regimen to catch up on what I'd missed - which I'm still following. That self-education has included some diverse first-gen stuff that went beneath my radar at the time, along with most of the bands you mention (and others).

Some bands from latter-day prog revival - Marillion, Flower Kings, Porc Tree, Spock's Beard, even Dream Theatre - are intentionally "retro-prog" (though updating the genre with modern textures and considerably higher technical standards than the first-gen guys had). I guess they have to be considered Prog, defined as a discrete genre with a recipe of ingredients once freshly combined, and now academically identifiable. To the extent they look backward, they're as much Prog-the-genre as truly progressive.

I do consider other artists who don't refer back to the tropes of that era to be progressive in the original sense. They're moving forward and extending rock as a genre.

Also, does prog's classical leanings have to come from the romantic period and prior?

Not for me.

Do bands with a sound pulled from modernist and postmodern periods also fall under the prog umbrella?

Absolutely.

16

Unfortunately Tim, Porcupine Tree is probably done for. They did some great stuff (I especially like the Deadwing album), but as Steven Wilson put it, he wanted to branch out into different musical things, and Porcupine Tree seemed to locking itself in a groove for harder driving rock stuff. In an interview I read of him, he quipped that he would consider reviving the group if they tried some jazzier things, but he knew for a fact that one or two of the members hated jazz.

With the above in mind - I wonder if Steven WIlson is still producing Opeth's albums. While Opeth does a lot of prog stuff, Mikael Åkerfeldt & Co. do like their heavier sounds.

BTW, here's Steve and Mikael taking a prog rock quiz.

17

Well yes. Steven is without doubt an ultimate prog nerd - I got about four of those!

(By comparison, the RRHoF prog quiz was insultingly elementary.)

I knew Porc Tree was gone, and I do like what I hear of Steven's output since. Dude is brilliant, no doubt, and consummate artist in everything he does. Too, his remixes have breathed new life into a lot of great material - not necessarily because they're always better than the originals, but because they bring the music to light again, and connect the old men with the younger people who are first discovering them.

I do always enjoy listening to his re-mixes though. There's alway new detail and fresh texture. I just can't say I always prefer them. They're sometimes a bit less bombastic than the originals, and what's prog without bombast?

18

og progger here

start with early pink floyd...syd (with his binson echorec) or david g (with his binson echorec)... maestro fripp's king crimson...tron!... mike oldfield-side long tunes that sold! ...his records kickstarted virgin records!!...next i go for more obscure...-the soft machine- (& offshoots)...uk eclectic jazz/prog/rock splendor...

tho not prog per se, zappa was a huge influence..his instrumental composed stuff...lumpy gravy..uncle meat...many european prog bands started from there...supersister, samla mammas manna, henry cow, hugh hopper, faust

cheers

– neatone

First of all, great thread and thanks to Proteus for starting this.

To neatone's point above, I once would've vehemently argued against the position of calling Pink Floyd progressive rock. Why? Because dammit I love classic rock! Great, but his pointing out Syd and David's Echorec spaciness hammers the position.......It isn't good old rock 'n roll, most of it is not "Psychedelic", but really in the style of King Crimson, it's Prog!

My thought of "prog" has always been a spazz-mode song with crap going everywhere.....which is my subjective opinion of most Yes music. Talented yes, but just as much shape as our Sun before it was a completed glowing, hot, ball of nuclear fusion life. Talk Prog and I call it lifeless entropy with zero mojo with the finished product as probably being very difficult to play......but leaving me with the question, who'd want to?

Is Pink Floyd Prog? Sometimes. Every album is seems to be a completely different project so it depends on the song I guess......at times, it covers most anything, everything, and nothing at all!

+1000 on neatone's take on Zappa.....for me, best description I've ever heard..

I hate prog, but.....am a big Jethro Tull fan, like a lot of ELP, some Rush, only 1 Yes album (yup, the 90125). I hate prog but give me any clip or show where Fripp or Adrian Belew are playing and I'm all in.

Now if anyone ask me what progressive rock is, I'll just them give them neatone's phone # and email address .......if I had it.....and if anyone asks. I believe Neatone knows way more than I do about many things music and especially in the technical department. Hey, I'm no slouch either! Or, am I really like Judge Smails and Chevy talking to me?!?!

19

I wish I still had my solid brass Jethro Tull belt buckle that I proudly wore in my junior and senior year in high school.


Register Sign in to join the conversation