Define "prog-lite"
 

Do bands like Boston, Kansas, Journey count as prog?
If not - can I call bands like Supertramp and Renaissance prog-lite? (a semi-rhetorical question)

Boston, Kansas, Journey are certainly not prog --- I believe two of them at least are seen as AOR (not sure about Kansas; some of their work might be seen as prog but I doubt you'd find them on any prog site).

Supertramp are often spoken of in the same breath as prog rock; certainly their earlier compositions like "It's a long road" and "Fool's overture" could be regarded as such, but later on they became quite commercial, say from "Breakfast in America" on, so for me they would not really be what I would think of as a prog rock band. Renaissance I don't know.

Never heard of prog-lite: if it's a subgenre you're trying to make up or assign, you'd need to define its parameters...

Edit: Progarchives.co.uk lists Kansas as "Symphonic prog", so maybe; though they also show Journey (JOURNEY!) as "prog related". Hmm. Other than their really early albums, I don't see it...

Shame on you, Kansas were very much prog in the 1970s.

Yeah I thought they might be but I haven't heard much of their output, except really for "Somewhere to elsewhere", which is a pretty damn fine album, so I wasn't really sure about them.

But come on: Boston? Journey? Where do these ideas come from??? :confused:

I am making up a definition. I'm just looking for opinions on what "prog" covers.


In my mind Boston, Kansas, Foreigner, Styx, Journey are all lumped togther (in a late 70's group of bands). Can I assume you are not calling Kansas prog (and not the others) just because they have a violin?

If I had to define "prog-lite" in four words, it would be

"Crime of the Century"

Not at all. As it happens Unknown Soldier has pointed out that I am in fact wrong about them, and they are seen as prog. Boston, Foreigner, Styx and Journey however are generally accepted as AOR or melodic rock, but they would never be seen as any sort of prog. There is nothing of the tenets of prog in their songs: no long keyboard solos, no multi-part compositions, no lyrics about mythology: not even a flute! :)

Certain bands are accepted as being in particular genres, though some do cross over from one to the other. In the case of these four bands though, you are certainly barking up the wrong Wishing Tree....

They were well past their best when that album came out and doesn't approach the quality of their 1970's work their "Golden Era"

Most of the AOR bands so of that era had superb musicians, who were on a par with any prog artists. Had Boston been around say 5 or 10 years earlier they probably would've been a prog band.

A lot of this is open to interpretation, but I'd rank the bands above as follows. In fact to make things even more confusing, when I talk about all my favourite AOR bands, I usually call them just soft rock bands or even west coast rock.

Prog rock- I'm sure you know what this is:)
Pomp rock- Condensed prog that is streamlined. Often called Arena Rock to confuse people even more. Was only really used in the 1970s.
AOR- Fusion of soft rock and hard rock, based on melody but the power was there. Heavily produced to provide commercial appeal.

Kansas- Prog then later AOR
Boston- AOR
Foreigner- AOR
Styx- Prog/Pomp then around 79 became an AOR band.
Journey- The early stuff with Greg Rolie was art rock/prog rock before becoming an AOR band.

In answer to your earlier question. Only Kansas were an out and out prog rock band.

What is the difference between prog and art rock???
I've always called what I thought was prog "art rock".

It really depends on how you want to classify your so-called "prog-lite".

Are you talking about bands that add progressive element to standard rock songs, along the lines of Foreplay/Longtime and Bohemian Rhapsody?

Or are you talking about bands like 80's Yes, 80's Genesis and the aforementioned Supertramp who are clearly progressive rock bands but add radio-friendly rock elements to their sound?

Or is it right in the middle at something like Achilles Last Stand, where it's equal parts progressive and rock?

Maybe having those parameters will help you.

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.

( https://www.musicbanter.com/games-li...litz-game.html )

I'm not knowledgeable enough to work out exactly what "prog-lite" could be, but, apart from the bands already mentioned, I would've included The Moody Blues and Audience I think:-

This confuses me too. Would New Age qualify as "prog-lite?"

^ Well, for me at least, rubber soul, New Age has a sound that's very distinct from prog. Even prog-lite has a musical complexity that is designed to engage you intellectually and keep you on your toes a little. To my mind, the aim of New Age is to soothe the troubled soul or, to put it brutally, to send you to sleep. ;)

There has been a fair helping of bands or individuals who have crossed prog over into New Age: Mike Oldfield, Iona and the Ozric Tentacles on their slower cuts are a few that come to mind. That album Ghost by Devin Townsend has some extensive prog-meets-New Age chops too.

Prog-lite (also known as Prog Pop)


In answer to the original question, Kansas, Boston, et al? No. Some are AOR, some are Pomp Rock, but none would, in my opinion, qualify as vaguely prog, not even lite. Whatever it may end up being accepted as being.

My own definition would be music that has prog sensibilities but leans in a more pop direction, perhaps even a rock direction, but where the prog is less pronounced than in your basic prog bands. Not so much of the noodling, longer suites, acoustic guitar or flute solos, and with more down-to-earth lyrics generally. I'd say Genesis from about 1981 onwards might qualify as prog-lite.

Kansas is prog.

I stand corrected. I don't know them that well anyway, but I would have thought they were more pomp rock, with the likes of Magnum. Progarchives, however, agrees with you.
:bowdown:

Styx is considered prog too but Kansas are musical geniuses compared to them

Kansas are definitely progressive rock, at least up until around 1981-83 before they went full AOR.

https://cache.emirates247.com/polopo...mage/image.jpg
https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/02/00/35/52...TYs0LeB7n8.jpg
https://www.colourbox.de/preview/11387815-.jpg
https://cdn.drawception.com/images/p...5fYsmW8K-6.png
https://image.shutterstock.com/image...-659299384.jpg

I think a lot of prog sounds kinda AOR during the more melodic, simple passages. Not surprised of certain past connections.

Someone will eventually write an amazing article that goes over how progressive rock musicians, slagged by punk at the tail end of the 70's, basically took over AOR radio throughout the 80's, but that day is not today.

^ TH is our resident expert on Prog, so I'm happy to take his definition as -er- definitive.

^ Nice to talk to you about music again, Anteater, after our differences in the Trump threads. Thanks for pointing out how at one time Prog started morphing into New Age - so in fact I owe rubber soul an apology for my over-hasty dismissal of his question.

Your mention of Mike Oldfield reminded me of Ommadawn, so I'm gonna take that idea to the bagpipes thread so that I can impress the guys there with my staggering musical erudition: https://www.musicbanter.com/talk-ins...s-kickass.html

Talking about politics is a relatively new thing for me here: I've been around since 2008 after all. :D

There's an interesting argument to be made that early Genesis (circa Trespass) was probably somewhat influential on New Age music as well, though I think that what Paul Horn did with his album Inside The Taj Mahal in 1968 is what kicked things off due to the unique approach it offered at the time.

^ Yes, I think you were more active in the music threads here in an era that many of today's members didn't witness. When I was an MB newbie you were already a venerable expert - which is why I, like several others, was surprised to discover that you're still in your twenties.

Anyway, I don't know the Paul Horn album you mentioned, but I used to have a copy of his Cleopatra album which is perhaps similar. I suppose before the term New Age was invented, proto new age was bubbling up in various places: the quieter moments of prog, Paul Horn's soft jazz that you mention, electronica probably, and for me personally, this album by John Fahey, which at one time I used to listen to night after night to de-stress from my working day. It's still beautiful, still takes me to a special place:-

Thanks but I think it would be inaccurate to describe me as an expert on anything, especially prog. There's a whole hell of a lot of it I have yet to listen to, but it remains my favourite genre so I do know something about it.

Fahey is also influential to the extent that that he and Wes Montgomery both pushed guitar into new musical territory, though Fahey is arguably the single biggest innovator.

Paul Horn recorded Inside in 1968 when he tagged along with The Beatles during their India excursion. I don't know if its the first New Age album, but a lot of people believe it is considering the unique elements of the recording environment and the soothing nature of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_(Paul_Horn_album)

I remember the good 'ol days when Trollheart, Comus, myself and Booboo were like the resident Prog Panel experts. :p: