Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

"Should rock be considered prog just because it's technical?"

Is a question I, as a prog fan, ask myself every once in awhile. Seems that's really all prog tends to seem to be considered in this day, and age. Even if early precursors like Pink Floyd weren't necessarily. However, it makes one wonder, what exactly makes a band like Dream Theather or Coheed and Cambria really prog? They both profit heavily from assembling extensively established pieces of music, and simply enhancing the solos.

Then again, if that's the case, why isn't Megadeth prog? Or why is it when the formula is truly bent in a non-rock direction are things labelled as Avant-garde? I mean would say, Mr.Bungle, be considered a prog band in the 70s even if considered an avant-garde band of today? Mixing Jazz, Carnival, rock, etc has been predominately territory of bands like King Crimson since their inception. What exactly happened in the 80s that has earned this distinct segregation? Does the fact that something like David Bowie even bar itself from being prog just because of simple structures even if there's often an extensive usage of atypical not typically instrumentation, and studio technique?

Christ... I'm getting too Socratic. At any rate, my point is, it was my understanding that prog was intended to be rock breaking into more sophisticated realms. Often utilizing elements of it's sister jazz-fusion and classical(which technically had an affair with classical since it's start).

Why is it it seems that things are considered prog just because they are technical even if they bear traits of little to no experimentation? I mean, what distinctly makes something progressive is prog rock is no longer allowed it's license to take risks?