Band or singer that best represents the music of the 70s

[Nine Crocodile]

That's just a "We Will Have To Politely Agree To Disagree".

Floyd? Just never really felt "Prog" to me. Even the records Syd was on. Put it up next to Gentle Giant? Almost no one is going to say "Yep. Both 'Apples' " It's more like Roky Erickson than Gentle Giant.

King Crimson? While I guess I can see what folks are saying, the first record comes out pretty late in '69. I guess there is a "Just The facts" case for it, but that's about it.

Moody Blues? Kinda the same as Floyd. If those three are you case for that it was taking from the sixties, it feels a little shaky.

As for it really being around in the eighties, I'd have to hear the case for that. Never really seemed that way to me.

'60s: The Nice, Procul Harum, Soft Machine, Caravan, Can, Van der Graaf Generator. One could make a case for Frank Zappa and early Jethro Tull as well.

'80s: Marillion, Pendragon, IQ, Saga. King Crimson are back. Prog-metal takes off with the likes of Queensryche and Voivod.

[numberthirty]

'60s: The Nice, Procul Harum, Soft Machine, Caravan, Can, Van der Graaf Generator. One could make a case for Frank Zappa and early Jethro Tull as well.

'80s: Marillion, Pendragon, IQ, Saga. King Crimson are back. Prog-metal takes off with the likes of Queensryche and Voivod.

Soft Machine and Can are in the same pile as Zappa to me. More like "Not Applicable" than "Prog Rock". Never mind that the "Tight Shoes"/"Thick Glasses" crowd is bound to start talking about Jazz Rock when it comes to Soft Machine. Don't even get me started on "what is Jazz Rock?" versus "what is Progressive Rock?"

Like King Crimson, that first Van der Graaf album is pretty late in '69.

Caravan is the one that was more "Sixties".

As for eighties King Crimson, that's another tough one. They were heading towards "Not Applicable" being more like seventies stuff that had very little to do with Progressive Rock.

As for Queensryche, see the previous statement about a genre band coloring out of the lines.

Marillion? See the above about King Crimson. It's kind of a "Mutt" approach as opposed to being a progressive rock band. That gets you to people talking about neo-progressive rock.

Pendragon? See Marillion. We're starting to talk "Is The 'New Wave' Of British Heavy Metal Heavy Metal?"

Good solid "Maybe?" on Voivod? Again, were getting pretty close to "Mutt" and not progressive rock. How much of it is "Prog", and how much of it is just a metal band coloring outside of the lines a little?

[numberthirty]

As for what represents the seventies(not a band or a singer)...

[WillieMorgan]

Soft Machine and Can are in the same pile as Zappa to me. More like "Not Applicable" than "Prog Rock". Never mind that the "Tight Shoes"/"Thick Glasses" crowd is bound to start talking about Jazz Rock when it comes to Soft Machine. Don't even get me started on "what is Jazz Rock?" versus "what is Progressive Rock?"

Like King Crimson, that first Van der Graaf album is pretty late in '69.

Caravan is the one that was more "Sixties".

As for eighties King Crimson, that's another tough one. They were heading towards "Not Applicable" being more like seventies stuff that had very little to do with Progressive Rock.

As for Queensryche, see the previous statement about a genre band coloring out of the lines.

Marillion? See the above about King Crimson. It's kind of a "Mutt" approach as opposed to being a progressive rock band. That gets you to people talking about neo-progressive rock.

Pendragon? See Marillion. We're starting to talk "Is The 'New Wave' Of British Heavy Metal Heavy Metal?"

Good solid "Maybe?" on Voivod? Again, were getting pretty close to "Mutt" and not progressive rock. How much of it is "Prog", and how much of it is just a metal band coloring outside of the lines a little?

I'm sorry but you just seem to be happily and willfully arguing against established musical history here. Easily provable history at that.

Your dismissal of long established Prog Rock acts as being 'not prog enough' or 'maybe' just to suit a personal agenda seems a bit desperate. Floyd not Prog enough? Check out Ummagumma and the title track to A Saucerful Of Secrets.

I'm a fan of Caravan. Whilst it's true that they were born out of the late 60's Canterbury Scene, their most celebrated work hails from the 70's. Any Caravan fan will tell you that.

[PaulBullion]

If we're just making up our own definitions now, I'd like to say that K-Pop refers to music from Kansas and you can agree to disagree with me on that.

[numberthirty]

I'm sorry but you just seem to be happily and willfully arguing against established musical history here. Easily provable history at that.

Your dismissal of long established Prog Rock acts as being 'not prog enough' or 'maybe' just to suit a personal agenda seems a bit desperate. Floyd not Prog enough? Check out Ummagumma and the title track to A Saucerful Of Secrets.

I'm a fan of Caravan. Whilst it's true that they were born out of the late 60's Canterbury Scene, their most celebrated work hails from the 70's. Any Caravan fan will tell you that.

"More Sixties" in that someone could at least make a case for their first album being from the sixties(Thinking it was summer/fall '68?)

A couple of the other bands released their first albums in late sixty-nine. That's just barely getting it in under the "Sixties" wire.

[numberthirty]

I'm sorry but you just seem to be happily and willfully arguing against established musical history here. Easily provable history at that.

Your dismissal of long established Prog Rock acts as being 'not prog enough' or 'maybe' just to suit a personal agenda seems a bit desperate. Floyd not Prog enough? Check out Ummagumma and the title track to A Saucerful Of Secrets.

I'm a fan of Caravan. Whilst it's true that they were born out of the late 60's Canterbury Scene, their most celebrated work hails from the 70's. Any Caravan fan will tell you that.

As for that, it is almost exactly what I'm talking about.

Your "No, That Is Clearly Prog." is another person's "Psych Rock"/"Space Rock".

So, "Established" is where I'm a little less inclined to agree. "Easily Provable"? Even less so. We're talking about sub-genres where even the folks with the so-called proof don't always agree.

[WillieMorgan]

"More Sixties" in that someone could at least make a case for their first album being from the sixties(Thinking it was summer/fall '68?)

A couple of the other bands released their first albums in late sixty-nine. That's just barely getting it in under the "Sixties" wire.

Yes, Caravan's self titled debut album was released in 1968. Many of the long established acts that we associate with the term 'Progressive Rock' were formed and released their first records in the late 60's (Yes for instance released their debut a year later in 1969). That's correct. The roots of the genre were established by artists that were active during that late 60's period and wanted to expand their sound and break out of what was considered popular music's boundaries. They did this in many different ways. The biggest exponents of the craft tended to stray into the 'virtuoso laden concept albums with 20 minute long epics plus elaborate stage sets and live performances' category. Others pursued jazzier, more free-form territory. Others pissed about with orchestras and the like. Some did all three of those and more. Like all other forms of music it was a multi-faceted scene. You seem to want to cherry pick what should be considered Prog and that's self defeating.

You asked before whether The Who should be considered Prog. Well, overall I'd have to say no. However I would certainly consider both Tommy and Quadrophenia to be Progressive Rock albums. There were no rules or pigeon-holing back then. It was a fantastic period of musical experimentation and exploration that took on many different hues sonically.

It is absolutely unquestionable that the genre's glory days mainly happened during the 1970's. Many bands were formed earlier like you say but their greatest achievements date to the later decade. 1971 alone saw some of the greatest 'Prog' albums ever created see release.

[numberthirty]

Yes, Caravan's self titled debut album was released in 1968. Many of the long established acts that we associate with the term 'Progressive Rock' were formed and released their first records in the late 60's too (Yes for instance released their debut a year later in 1969). That's correct. The roots of the genre were established by artists during that late 60's period that wanted to expand their sound and break out of what was considered popular music's boundaries. They did this in many different ways. The biggest exponents tended to stray into the virtuoso laden concept albums with 20 minute long epics plus elaborate stage sets and live performances category. Others pursued jazzier, more free-form territory. Others pissed about with orchestras and the like. Some did all three of those and more. Like all other forms of music it was a multi-faceted scene. You seem to want to cherry pick what should be considered Prog and that's self defeating.

You asked before whether The Who would be considered Prog. Well, not really overall, but I would certainly consider both Tommy and Quadrophenia as Progressive Rock albums. There were no rules back then. It was a fantastic period of musical experimentation and exploration that took on many different hues sonically.

It is absolutely unquestionable that the genre's glory days mainly happened during the 1970's. Many bands were formed earlier like you say but their greatest achievements date to the later decade. 1971 alone saw some of the greatest 'Prog' albums see release.

I was thinking of "A Quick One, While He's Away", but we might be talking about different shades of dark purple.

[WillieMorgan]

I was thinking of "A Quick One, While He's Away", but we might be talking about different shades of dark purple.

Nah, not really. That track certainly ticks a lot of the 'prog' boxes if you like for me. Wikipedia classify it as 'proto-prog' and that sounds about right.

[WillieMorgan]

As for that, it is almost exactly what I'm talking about.

Your "No, That Is Clearly Prog." is another person's "Psych Rock"/"Space Rock".

So, "Established" is where I'm a little less inclined to agree. "Easily Provable"? Even less so. We're talking about sub-genres where even the folks with the so-called proof don't always agree.

I'd consider other early Floyd tracks as better examples of Space Rock rather than A Saucerful Of Secrets. Other than it's title there's little 'spacey' about it to me. Interstellar Overdrive or Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun on the other hand....

However you want to label this music, and like you say people will disagree on that regardless, it still all falls under the umbrella term of Progressive Rock to most people. You seem to be using semantics to try and win a point in this case though.

[wjowski]

The only people I ever hear saying Pink Floyd's not prog are people that like Floyd but hate Prog.

[PaulBullion]

Seems like you have by now moved the goal posts from your original nonsensical claim:

If that is the metric, it's up for debate.

You could make an argument that Progressive Rock ran neck and neck when it came to not lifting from the sixties and having almost no presence during the eighties.

You said it pretty was created out of thin air in the 70s. Now you're being confronted with "proto prog rock" and actual prog rock form the 70s, and I have no idea even anymore what you're claiming because my eyes glaze over when I start reading your posts.

[numberthirty]

The only people I ever hear saying Pink Floy's not prog are people that like Floyd but hate Prog.

Love Floyd/Love Prog

[numberthirty]

Seems like you have by now moved the goal posts from your original nonsensical claim:

If that is the metric, it's up for debate.

You could make an argument that Progressive Rock ran neck and neck when it came to not lifting from the sixties and having almost no presence during the eighties.

You said it pretty was created out of thin air in the 70s. Now you're being confronted with "proto prog rock" and actual prog rock form the 70s, and I have no idea even anymore what you're claiming because my eyes glaze over when I start reading your posts.

Put simply...

You've misread if you assert what is in blue at the start of the post.

If you are saying something was good about not lifting from an era, you are not saying something was "Created Out Of Thin Air"(which, let's face it, no genre really ever has been...)

You are saying that they took things that came before and made a call not to just make a "Greta Van Fleet"/"Led Zeppelin" sort of a move. The twelve string guitars in Genesis are the obvious example that I could go into, but it doesn't really seem like there's much of a point.