I think you're wrong and also, besides yourself, I think very few people would define prog rock as something which has never been done before.

I agree with you as well tore.

Concerning the prog rock genre, there is always the possibility of a new prog band, appearing from out of nowhere.

Progressive rock has expanded in the total number of prog rock bands added to the label, since its peak in the 70s.

And I seriously do not expect progressive rock to ever just stop evolving, but to continually keep on adding other new bands to the prog rock category itself.

I don't see progressive rock, as ever going dormant in my opinion, maybe slowing down a little more and more, as time progresses, and as to how music evolves, through the years in the decades to come.

I just got a whole bunch of Fred Frith-related stuff and some Canterbury

so i'll get back to you on that

Fred Frith is a great example of a good guitarist but not excellent from a technical point of view who prefers ingenuity over playing skill.

I agree!

Something which I think is interesting about prog rock is that, as I've pointed out before, there are not that many characteristics unique to prog rock bands. When you look at the early prog such as King Crimson, Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull, ELP, they all sound different. If you imagine that you have to look for something in the sound of these bands that make you able to say "this is prog rock because they do this particular thing", there's not that much. You could attempt something like occasional medieval influence which might include Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant, Yes, Genesis and King Crimson, but that would exclude Pink Floyd. You could try and say they all made very long songs, but that would exclude Gentle Giant. If you try and say something about general complexity, is The Dark Side of the Moon, the world's most famous prog album, particularly complex?

I think that so far in this thread, most of us will agree that neither is instrumental technicality something that immediately marks a band as prog. As a result, there are not many characteristics that immediately betray a band as being prog at all. It seems a band is prog when it possesses enough characteristics that are thought of as typical of prog, but what the exact combination of such traits are can differ. Thus, the label prog rock could mean different things and indeed there is no strict definition. It's a term made up by thousands of opinions. How could music which is so loosely defined ever stop evolving?

But then, although bands start out unique, as time progresses, new tricks turn into old tricks and new bands start to mimic the old which can make newer prog bands sound more similar to eachother and the old than the old did to eachother. So, the amount of bands that sound more samey will only increase. That doesn't mean prog won't churn out new sounds and ideas.

edit :

I think the closest you get to finding characteristics that define a band as being prog is that at some point, they've meddled with untraditional time signatures. That's just about something all prog rockers do, although that trait is of course not unique to prog rock.

I think that all the bands you mentioned have one or more elements of Prog in their sound, but they musically differ..of course they do, all bands within a genre will..
But as long as they incorporate some of the elements below they could qualify as prog
Longer songs, ranging to epic length
Fantasy elements and spiritual themes
Symphonic sounds
Complex time signatures
Classically influenced elements
Concept albums
Theatrical performance

However I do take exception to the fact that Metal bands are described as Prog when they feature longer songs or have complex timings. Its a definition of Metal that it is a distilled form of Blues, simpler and harder. It contradicts prog, in the same way Punk does. 'Fraid I am a real purist when it comes to Prog.

But thats an old school attitude to prog! Its kind of, if it doesn`t sound like Yes or Genesis then it ain`t real prog. Prog by its nature is experimental and I see no reason why it shouldn`t incorporate all types of music regardless. If a metal or punk band has enough prog elements, then they should be regarded as prog within their genres. I will agree though that a lot of bands especially metal bands get called prog, when all they`re really doing is just playing longer songs in a far more technical manner. Hence within the sub metal genre of death metal some of the bands get called progressive death metal, whilst other get called technical death metal..........it get confusing.

BTW, good first ever post:D

Thanks! Good topic as well as I have strong opinions on this, but I am not so pure Genesis and Yes from a Prog standpoint, many bands I think of as Prog such as the Flower Kings, Anathema, Karmakanic and the Tangent are from the last decade, they are all different and I agree that Metal is ok to sub categorise as Prog, Porcupine Tree, fit this perfectly. Like you said, it is confusing. But I am clear that I believe that bands such as Metallica, Led Zeppelin etc should not be referred to as prog for the reasons I have already mentioned.
cheers

I`m familiar with the bands you`ve listed especially the Flower Kings and Anathema, Anathema are in essence a metal band anyway and their early stuff incorporates death, doom and gothic metal before they began to streamline their sound more and take on more Porcupine Tree prog type influences. Concerning metal bands and prog on this forum, Opeth are one of the dividing bands on the subject, with some seeing them as prog metal and others not.

Led Zeppelin definitely not prog and as for Metallica thats not so straightforward, as they were capable of playing looong technical songs with multiple changes......But for the record, I still don`t think of them as a prog metal band in any way, just as a thrash band that played long technical songs.

That was sort of my point. None of the points you mention are unique to prog rock. Fantasy elements are abound in metal, classical music for example has very long songs, folk rockers have been playing around with old instruments, concept albums can be found in most genres .. and theatrical performances, although it's not something I think of as typical of prog, is also found in other genres.

The point is that a band is prog when it falls within a certain range of possible combinations of certain musical characteristics. That's how useless genres are sometimes. You telling me that a band needs to possess "some elements" in order to be prog only confirms what I wrote.