no, that's stupid.

boobs isn't trying to make a comprehensive list of every prog band to ever exist. that would be unnecessary and insane. not to mention it defeats the purpose of a poll, which (i thought) was to compare the relative popularity of certain bands. yer not going to be able to do that if you include every band ever made during the seventies.

if you really didn't like any of the ones up there feel free to click 'other'. it's looking pretty lonely right now.

Besides, I added Soft Machine.

This covers just about all the most popular bands of the era. Except maybe Kansas but seriously who would f*cking vote for them?

Hm, not sure what you think is going on. I just made a suggestion to add bands after people have said they want them in the poll (f.ex start out with a list of the few most popular, then add bands as more are suggested). That way, you would have a poll over bands people actually wanna vote for without, as you say, having to include any more. It seems you think I want him to include everything when I pretty much suggested doing the opposite.

There's no really good reason why alternatives that don't get voted for should be in the poll. By my suggestion, if someone would vote for them, they'd be in the poll so by not being there, you know they have 0 votes. You don't need the poll to tell you that.

Anyways, it was just a suggestion for the next time someone does this. I do like Boo Boo's poll the way it is and I found many of my favourites on it.

Like who? These are the most well known bands (and IMO best) of the era. I left out one band and I just added them. Aside from Can I really didn't want to include Krautrock bands.

Dude, what is your problem. Are you a psychic? Do you expect me to be a psychic. How am I supposed to know which bands will get votes? If I knew exactly how the outcome was gonna be why even have a poll? That's all part of the fun. It's unpredictable.

Alright, I see you still don't get it.

"Hey, this is gonna be a poll of the best early prog bands. Instead of putting up any bands in the poll, I want you guys to leave posts suggesting the bands you wanna vote for. I will then add them to the poll!"

The poll text would read : "What's your favourite 70s prog band? If you don't see it in the poll, write a post and I will add it for you!"

If it works out you get a poll containing only bands that people are gonna vote for - no bands with 0 votes. I might do it like this because I'm picky and like to figure out smart ways to do things. However, it's merely a simple suggestion, that's it. You shouldn't waste energy getting all upset and personal about it.

Predictable results, I thought King Crimson would hold it a little closer round here though.

This poll is just fine, if the bands with 0 votes bug you guys so much, then I dunno, vote for them.

I voted for Genesis, at one time or another I was interested in Pink Floyd and Yes. Yes is a band of extraordinary talent and I like Yes and I don't want to sound like I am knocking them, but in my opion their songs are just a means to showcase their virtuosity, it is like a revolving door of solos, while with Genesis, it all about the song. Steve Hackett is not your typical blues-based guitarist during the 70's, he has an unconvential approach and Peter Gabriels singing made it the best Prog Band in the early 70's.

To be fair, that is a very broad criticism that's often directed towards prog rock in general.

Granted Yes are one of the most solo oriented prog bands, but while long solos can ruin songs, IMO it doesn't for Yes. Long interchanging solos work for them because they keep it fresh and interesting, it's not by the numbers and Howe, Squire and Wakeman especially know how to surprise and capitvate me with their solos. They tend to bring about the best moments in songs.

Genesis don't dabble in long solos quite as often but they do have them, but again Banks and Hackett are so original that they never bore me, Rutherford/Collins aren't as virtuostic and showy as Squire/Bruford but they know how to suit the songs perfectly.

So I detest the idea that long solos are automatically boring.

If there's any prog band who ruins their material with long, boring by the numbers solos, it's Dream Theater. :mad:

I agree completely.

Agree completely, automatically assuming that solos are boring or simply to show off virtuosity is so incredibly unfounded. Of course bands like Dream Theater are a perfect example of solos done wrong, a lot of extended solos in progressive rock fit so well in the songs. If you're good enough to play a solo and make it sound good, then they should certainyl be allowed to do so.

I have to bring this up because I thought it was interesting. I heard what they thought was their best stuff never got to album, like Close to the Edge. I thought it was great, but they said they had even better ideas that got lost in the recording process. In a way Yes and Genesis the creative process is the same where they jam out a song until it is recorded.


You said it better then me, maybe if I said it that way (Genesis isn't virtustic as Yes) you wouldn't had quoted me.

As far as solols Genesis make use of the instrumental songs like "Los Endos" so jamming is important to Genesis, it just different then other bands. Some band the solo is the outro other it's the bridge, one long expansion bridge.
Mike Rutherford admits he isn't the greatest of bass players but he has a couple of tricks like the bass runs and playing staccato but it works.
As a drummer in Yes Bill Bruford has more of a cerebral polyrhythmic appoach to drumming then a four to the floor rock drummer.

And I'm glad I didn't say that.

All this talk of solos - Why wasn't Traffic part of the survey?

NUTS.

I always forget them for some reason.

Traffic, Moody Blues and Procol Harum added. =D

darn, I voted a LONG time ago, so now I cant vote for SM! >:(

JETHRO ****ING TULL!!!


but yeah, Ian Anderson is one of my most favorite frontmen/composers

Voted for Yes just above King Crimson and Rush. I often see so many surveys like the above that fail to mention bands such as Styx or Kansas, are these bands not really seen as prog?

Uriah Heep never thought of them as prog!!!

Also no mention of "Argus" by Wishbone Ash?

Can, with Pink Floyd as a close second.

Can: they were experimental but also extremely smart. All the member were western art music students, but they never lost their time trying to make Rock music akin to Classical or bring Classical conventions into Rock (unlike that godawful E.L.P. group). Instead they merged a truck load of genres in into one package taking into account all the properties of rock music: simplicity, repetition, minimalism.

Pink Floyd: Because they were the less prog of all the english prog bands. And actually had a good songwriter. Ignoring the post-Syd, pre-Darkside period they always knew how to trim the fat and drop all the pointless demostration of "talent" in over long, over the top compositions. I do love Echoes and Carefull with that Axe, Eugene.

I guess I'm not to big on prog.

Do you ever get tired of being a parrot for pretentious twat music critics?

Oh for f*ck's sake. :rolleyes:

Stay out of the prog section then.

I mean I can listen to Yes or Rush but not for the songwriting. I mean is Jon Anderson actually saying anything?

Okay, Genesis also know how to write songs. I was being unfair.

Mate, pretension music critics? The only critics I read is Mark Prindle and Starostin, because they are both funny (Prindle because he is and Starostin because he's opinions are truly laughable). I did visit Piero Scaruffi web site once so that may be it.

I think songwriters actually do more than just write lyrics, correct me if I'm wrong.

Nor do I think you have to be a good lyricist to be a good songwriter.

So do Yes and Rush, it might not conform to the "Pretentious old hippie buttf*cking the corpse of Woody Guthrie while strumming an acoustic guitar" dynamic that people usually associate singing/songwriting with, or the "verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/guitar solo/chorus" dynamic of most rock music but I dunno, I always thought trying different styles of music should be encouraged. I guess not, prog doesn't conform to the rock n roll trifecta. Which is simple, miminal and repetitive, and god forbid you break the rules of rock n roll. :rolleyes:

I'll give you this point. There is more to sonwrinting than lyrics. I suppose the style just doesn't attract me.

I'm all for variety. But I'm against gimmick variety. I might be dead wrong, but I find the "Look, I can put jazz and classical together in a 40 minute suit" to be more exabitionist than an actual artistic statment. I find it robotic. Again, my opinion. I'm not bashing anyone who thinks otherwise.

If classical composers can do long suites, why can't a rock band? It's their music, they can do what they want and take inspiration from what they want, I'm tired of people praising rock n roll, this genre that was all about rule breaking, and then saying closed minded stuff about subgenres that don't conform to the rules of rock n roll. People like that are no better than the pipe smoking, Pat Boone loving, bible thumping moms and pops who looked down on rock n roll back in it's heyday.

Eh, I'm a little bitter, but when you like music that most people hate, it's hard not to be, don't mean to be a d*ck, I'm just very defensive.

Well, just for future reference Tchock, not all progressive rock is made up of albums with forty minutes suites and such, lol. :afro:

I'm pretty open to suggestion on good prog rock, actually. There is alot more portential in a mega talented band than in a average rock band that's for sure. I like Porcupine Tree, are they considered prog?

Yes they are.

But it's still all pretentious shite, argh. http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t...nut/pirate.gif

Well Steven Wilson is a pretty good songwriter.

The great beauty of Jon Anderson`s lyrics, are the fact that they don`t make any sense.

comus by miles and miles and miles.

Nor are they supposed to, not many prog bands really give two sh*ts about the lyrics, vocals are treated more like an instrument than a way to use lyrics to translate some point of view, and more often than not music comes first, and the lyrics are intended to just fit with the music. I think it's one reason fantasy themes are used so often because it fits with that kinda music.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure 90% of Jon's lyrics are made up on the spot and used just because they fit well with the music, I think he just uses words he really likes, like "River" and "Mountain". :laughing:

Of course that's not to say there aren't prog bands with emphasis on lyrics, Ian Anderson, Peter Garbiel, Richard Sinclair and Peter Hammill are pretty tight lyricists IMO, and have a great sense of wit and humor that people often overlook. And Waters of course.

There`s certainly a lot of wit in the lyrics of both Ian Anderson and Peter Gabriel and I think there is also a lot of tongue-in-cheek with Roger Waters as well.

I think as far as Prog bands go, Rush do seem to put more of an emphasis on their lyrics, especially given Neil Peart`s admiration on Ayn Rand.

I`d never really listened to too much by Van der Graaf Generator but listened to one the albums that you recommended and besides liking the album the album a lot, I was very impressed with Peter Hammill`s vocal range, on further investigation found John Lydon of all people, was greatly influenced by his vocal style. Kinda of strange really that a punk artist would draw inspiration from a prog one but then again I`m sure there are similiar musical disparities out there.

Seriously, people who say prog lacks humor obviously aren't paying enough attention.

I mean you can't possibly get more humorous than Gong or Sinclair era Caravan.

I've never been too fond of Peart as a lyrcist to be honest, though that has never tainted my enjoyment of their music, I don't really care that much about lyrics.

Roxy Music, Can and Hawkwind have also had a strong influnce on punk music.

The more miminalistic and "rock n roll" oriented prog bands tend to be more popular among non prog fans, then again VDGG is neither of those things, they were one of the most bombastic prog bands of them all, so it is odd that Lydon would consider himself a fan and even credit them as an influence on Public Image Ltd.

I also noticed a resemblence between Hammill`s voice and Ziggy Stardust era David Bowie as well, so not sure who influenced who here or maybe its just a coincidence.

Heh, now that you say it, you're right, his accent and approach is very different but the actual tone of voice is quite similar, but that's just their natural voices, I don't think they were imitating each other.

Hammill's resemblance to Bowie is one the main things that helped me get into VdGG.

^I was sort of bored by the little I heard from them, I'll have to give it another try.

i'm actually surprised that Mahavishnu Orchestra was on the list. all that i've heard from them really harkens to more jazz fusion stuff.

but if those are the kinds of groups that'd be on the list, how about other fusion bands, like Return To Forever or Weather Report?

Close tie between Jethro Tull, Rush, and Genesis, but Jethro Tull got the win because Ian Anderson is weird.

Already voted then didn't realize Magma was on the list :(

Also, if we're talking about humorous prog. A prime example is Samla Mamas Manna. It's VERY obvious they're not taking themselves to seriously, and they are very easily classifiable as prog.

Im surprised Pink Floyd is leading the poll over "YES", I dont really see how any band could be considered (in any catagory), as better than YES.

I voted for Traffic as the best band on that list.

My top five on the list would be:

Traffic
Mahavishnu Orchestra
The Moody Blues
King Crimson
Jethro Tull