The bounds of what is and what isn't prog have never been firm or universally agreed upon. Even among the most knowledgeable prog fanatics there is often heated debate about what does or does not qualify as a prog band.
I think that this has been my main problem. Where are the boundaries so I've decided to blur them. Added so far; Supertramp, Yes, King Crimson, Soft machine & Asia. All pretty safe bets I'd say
Amongst those on the list to add includes; Radiohead (is that going too far), Muse, ELP (safe as houses), Pink Floyd (obviously) and Caravan (another safe better I'd suggest)
I think for the chart you should take the loosest definition of prog, and just include everything you like and consider prog, even if that means Pink Floyd, Muse and ELO end up there.
That's pretty much what I've decided to do LedZep. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts
I don't consider Family a prog band and thus did not include them in my prog charts (whereas I did with Supertramp). Maybe it's just because their name usually doesn't get thrown around in that context (whereas Supertramp does), but it just doesn't feel right. If you were to include them you would get no objections for me, since you've paired those two bands together I really can't think of a good reason why one should be considered more prog than the other. It's really a hard genre to define, I mean Radiohead is in Prog Archives. These bands are in the rather murky "Crossover Prog" section.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
