The next definition can be hard core prog. I.E. no pop leanings what so ever.

Sorry to interrupt ladies and gents, but I hope lot aren't forgetting some of the cooler groups that qualify as "prog-lite", such as The Alan Parsons Project, Ambrosia, Toto and Saga. :/

Of course, this is under the assumption that "prog-lite" refers to pop-oriented bands with progressive songwriting ideas (or vice versa) as previously mentioned before. To that end, even groups like 10cc would qualify. xD

I'm really not comfortable with subdividing the prog genre. "Prog-lite" to me seems to be just an excuse to shoehorn in many bands who have little or no relevance to prog into the genre. I mean, many artistes have at one time or another had a longish, epic song with a few changes along the way, but is for instance Springsteen's "Jungleland" or The Eagles' "Long road out of Eden" prog? You'd have to say no. So just having prog leanings, especially only in a few songs, I would think would not qualify a band or artiste as prog.

As for APP, I would definitely consider them prog. They've had some great concept albums ("Tales of mystery and imagination"/"Eye in the sky"/"Turn of a friendly card"/"Eve") and their sound, though it does often tend more towards the pop side, has a lot of heavy prog elements. Even Parsons' solo material has this thread of prog running through it; take a listen to "Mr Time" from his debut solo, or "One day to fly" from "On air", and tell me they're not prog... :)

As "Prog-lite" doesn't actually exist its hard to really define it, but if it did Supertramp and 10cc might be two of the best examples.

Could very well be, but I'm a bit sceptical as their debut features music dating back to 1969, even if what you hear on the record is of course recorded much later. They were very much rock musicians during the prog era so they could've latched on to it if they'd had the interest.

I'm glad they went the route they did, though. Their debut is such a hard rock classic.

What I exactly meant, was if the band had been around several years earlier they may well have been a prog band, given the detail and attention that they put into their music.

You're quite right though, their debut album was heavily fused with classic rock n roll and is probably one of the few AOR albums that hard rockers can really enjoy.

I suppose Supertramp could be said to have had a light or thin sound/feel, but they were not lightweight (certainly not on the first three albums). They had a commercial patch in the late seventies/ ealry eighties, but I lost interest, so I am not sure if that constitutes 'lite'. I always liked Rick Davies and when Hodgson left, I though they improved. I would have thought that Cannonball played live was far from 'lite'.

I remember the word 'lite' appearing when the press described Queen as Led Zeppelin-lite, which might seem right if you have never heard their albums, because it ignores tracks like Brighton Rock and Dragon Attack.

I never thought of Kansas as progressive, anymore than Jethro Tull or Rush. None of these are lite though.

To be fair to the suggestion of Boston as "prog", while most of their stuff is definitely AOR, there are certainly elements in some of their music (Foreplay/Long Time, for example) in which there are certainly elements that influenced later Prog music. Whether they were in themselves influenced by Prog around the same time... I'm not going to make any assumptions there, largely because I'm extremely bad at remembering the ordering of bands from that era...

I guess the point there is that sometimes Boston took elements that are normally associated with Prog and wove them into their standard AOR, so in someways that could be considered a "lite" form of prog, no?

This has been discussed on here before. "Lite" just simply means a more mainstream sounding proggy band or a band with a commercial sheen imo.

You shouldn't have said that Rush weren't prog, you'll have the hate brigade sending you nasty emails:laughing: By the way why don't you think Rush, Jethro Tull and Kansas are prog?

As I was saying before, bands like Boston and Toto were highly gifted and exceptional musicians, had they been around several years earlier they may well have been putting out a prog sound, but by the time that these bands were putting out their debut albums, prog was on the slide and AOR was taking off. Bands like Steely Dan and Supertramp were bridging the gap between the two genres and showing that highly gifted musicians at the time could make shorter accomplished songs. Bands like Boston and Toto were certainly going to have some prog influences because that was what they were partly influenced by.

As far as I can tell, Boston was a showpiece for the founder/lead guitarist. As such, it was never going to be a prog band. If some of its songs are structured vaguely like progressive music, that's probably coincidence, via Mr. MIT's technical wizardry and explorative approach.