Phantom of the Opera, if it was performed solely by one band, and not sung by several singers backed by an orchestra and attached to a musical, would be "prog"

prog takes a lot from classical, neways

Depending on the band, I generally agree with you. If it's two recorders and a violin to someone singing, then I don't agree. If it's played by someone approaching something more like a rock band, then it could be prog.

I don't know, though. Gentle Giant often gets so sucked into it's European folk mode that it feels more a modern bard song, than rock itself. One could argue a large portion of their discography has very little of rock, and blues in it.

I think prog is any music promoted to a singularly rock audience in order to open their minds of the potentials of rock. Sometimes it resembles classical more, sometimes it's nothing more than straight jazz fusion. In the end, however, the thing that really distinguishes it is the target audience, and the means to appeal to them.

With that said, I don't think unless prog introduces some element the listener isn't used to from mainstream rock, then it really isn't prog. Coheed and Cambria is my example. They may have long song structures, and I'm not sure or not, but they may even have themes. But their music stays strict within 70s Rush/Zeppelin territory, and even by that seems quite watered down, and pandering. Definitely not prog.

Interesting point, classical music eventually evolved to non systematic composition and like Mozart and Beethoven (to name the obvious) the music became progressive in the fact that it didn't rely on recurring themes or a compositional organizational structure. Earlier Crimson and middle Tull also have this non-structure as well. The need to have a 'song' on an album was too great it seems, and as with any species the need to survive took precedent.

I like Jethro Tull, but would find them a piss poor example of 'Prog Rock'. There were some medieval under tones, and some strong themeology. Even albums with prolonged song structures. Generally, however, they're really sort of classic rock with a few medieval undertones. They stayed very strictly in 'safe territory' their career.

When I think of something that's effectively prog I think of something like 'Samla Mammas Manna'. Very dense, creative, compositions. Unique aesthetic. Brilliantly virtuoso. Yet, to the point of alienating any mainstream appeal. Prog can be good prog, and mainstream. Yet, I think it should still have some tendencies to introduce to people a sound which redefines the possibilities of rock.

Tull is brilliant, extremely well written rock, but doesn't really do that for me.

LOL . . . hysterical
crapBut hey to each their own!

Try
this on for progressive size . . .

I agree with Tull being a bad example for progressive. Rush is the ultimate and perfect example of progressive rock in my opinion.

I never was a fan of Jethro Tull either, but its cool if others are.

In all fairness, Samla very much intends the humor in their approach. I find that refreshing. Plus, from a technical level, they're far superior to Jethro Tull. Just because the intended humor is lost on you, doesn't mean you need to overlook their virtuosity.

Now, I LIKE Jethro Tull a lot. But don't honestly feel they're that progressive. In fact, I'd say they're quite conservative. I mean, take out the orchestration on albums, and the flute playing, and it's just straight arena rock.

I saw a cable show of a recent concert from Rush, and man Geddy Lee was just fantastic, Pert was great, Lifeson too loud and distorted but ok.

Post a good example, because I can't find one.