Well then neither were Kansas! They both had debuts in 1974. Let's be fair about this.
I have some old book lying around called Uncle Joe's record guide: The progressive rock edition and it lists six bands. Those six bands are Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd and YES. I think those were the most commercially successful bands. However, that wouldn't necessarily make them the most important. You could easily swap out The Moody Blues for King Crimson.
Last edited by Digital_Man; 10-25-2013 at 08:02 PM.
Dang it, I knew you were going to say that. I had a paragraph written trying to defend them on the grounds that they were the forefront of prog on this continent, but... I gotta agree, they're out. And I also Agree the Moodys are in, so I would make it 9. (I wouldn't swap).
It sounds like you swapped The Moodies for Kansas.
Anyway, I don't see why RUSH or Kansas aren't first wave. They aren't second wave(that would be Marillion or whoever). I guess it's all up to interpretation. I'd say any band doing prog before 1978 or 79 is fair game for inclusion in the big five or six or whatever. RUSH were actually formed in 1968. So a prog band had to be well known in the prog scene before 74? Sorry, I don't understand your arbitrary cut off dates. Like I said if it's before neo prog of the eighties I don't see why we can't include them. The Moodies to me weren't really prog enough so I guess I have rules too.
Oops, you're right, I did swap so the count doesn't change... I'm not going with date so much as influences. I don't think Rush or Kansas could have existed without the other bands as direct influences, whereas bands like Yes and KC were really the first of their kind. They had influences, sure, but they synthesized something new. The other part of the equation is popularity and general acceptance. That's why ELP is Big 5 and not The Nice. Rush did arguably develop into the progenitors of a whole new thing (prog-metal) but that's a new thing and not prog per se.
It is all sort of arbitrary, that's why it's fun to talk about.
Come to think of it, Kansas was so distinctly American, with that whole Aaron Copeland wide-open-spaces thing that no Euro band had, and even the Southern Rock influence... maybe they should be on the list...
[I don't think Rush or Kansas could have existed without the other bands as direct influences, whereas bands like Yes and KC were really the first of their kind.]
I see what you mean and you do have a valid point. You could say that YES and GENESIS would have sounded different if there was no KC though. However, I won't say that without KC there would be no YES or GENESIS since they existed as a band before KC's debut album. PF and JT also were around before that. RUSH and Kansas were influenced by those early bands so if you want to say they don't count that's cool but to me they will always count.
[That's why ELP is Big 5 and not The Nice.]
Sure. I'd say popularity should have something to do with it. However, you have to draw the line somewhere and for this reason I put KC in the big five and not GG. Some say GG were almost as big as Genesis. Well maybe but I think Genesis's longevity and influence beats out GG's and so does KC even though GG are still without a doubt a very important prog band and certainly in the top ten most influential. The thing is, for me at least, if you put in GG then you also have to add VDGG, Camel, Renaissance and maybe a few others. I kind of hate to use the term second tier to describe some of these bands but they weren't really big like ELP, YES, GENESIS, PF etc. Also, it gets tricky with how much of a prog band were certain bands. I think JT only had a few prog albums(same thing with Frank Zappa maybe). The Moody BLues are another example. They were very influential but ultimately I don't think they developed into the kind of prog that would be associated with the genre in the seventies(long epic tracks, virtuosity, time changes, long instrumentals etc). I do admit they fall under the prog umbrella somewhere though.
Last edited by Digital_Man; 10-25-2013 at 10:46 PM.
Look at it this way, it beats arguing what is prog
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
42
“Pleasure and pain can be experienced simultaneously,” she said, gently massaging my back as we listened to her Coldplay CD.
One, unless you want to count the Marshall and Howard lineups as two bands.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
I like this (though I'm not familiar with NYRnRE)
I think there was always talk about this ...we use to argue in the 90's about this, and I rememlber talks of this in the early days of PA forums as well
Exactly... Ditto for Genesis (until the Duke tour) and GG never did
BTW: that's Creem Magazine
Well, not sure heard about that in the 70's... and then Genesis didn't really get big until Hackett left, so they couldn't be in there... The Moody Blues aligned six or seven major sellers in the early 70's...
Last edited by Trane; 10-26-2013 at 04:10 AM.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
It's a big 6: Atomic Rooster, King Crimson, ELP, Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd.
Member since Wednesday 09.09.09
Maybe it should be a Big 5 + a wildcard.....and the wildcard is a number to add to the 5 he he he
THE BIG 3
I'm going to rock the boat here and actually say that the Big 5 is already expanded even from the perspective of 1969 to include other undergorund bands that wouldn't have been included had we been making the Big 5 today based on today's understanding of prog, while at the same time overlooking prog bands (not proto-prog) that had been on the go since 67. So as such it should only have been a Big 3 if only counting UK bands.
My reasoning
1. Genesis didn't release their first prog album until Trespass in October 1970 (Hot Rats came out in October 69)
2. Pink Floyd didn't release a proper prog studio album until Atom Heart Mother in October 1970
3. Jethro Tull has never been a prog band. Blues, folk, heavy rock - However, their first close to "prog" LP was Aqualung in April 1971
So now to my BIG THREE:
1. King Crimson - September 69
2. Yes - October 69
3. The Nice - 1967 The Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack + 1968 Ars Longa Vita Brevis are far more prog than 90% of Floyd's & Tull's albums)
I agree that in the seventies Genesis weren't at the same level as the other four, but they were definitely way bigger than Camel, Caravan, Gentle Giant, BJH, Greenslade, King Crimson, VDGG, Curved Air, Egg...or any other British band who could be labelled prog. So if it had to be a Big 5, then they would have to be in there. I suppose the question is, why Big 5?
So.... I guess Astonomy Domine from Floyd's first release doesn't qualify as "prog"? They came out of the birth canal as prog.. plus you have Intersteller Overdrive on that release as well.
Then their next 3 releases... Saucers, More and Umagumma before Atom Heart Mother.. throw in Embryo as a single.. Floyd was prog from day one..
Jackie
Jermaine
Tito
Marlon
Michael
"Corn Flakes pissed in. You ranted. Mission accomplished. Thread closed."
-Cozy 3:16-
Willis Reed
Dave DeBusschere
Walt Frazier
Bill Bradley
Earl"The Pearl" Monroe
"please do not understand me too quickly"-andre gide
The small to medium-sized 5 could be: BJH, Greenslade, Camel, Fruupp and Caravan.
Member since Wednesday 09.09.09
Keith
Lori
Danny
Chris
Mom
...maybe Tracy
Bookmarks