Originally Posted by tore

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.

Originally Posted by ericbfg

I feel that the characteristics I have set out are some of the things that people like Roine Stolt, phideaux xavier, Andy Tillison and others like Steven Wilson and Michael Akerfeldt amongst others, are pushing to ensure that the prog genre is a definable music genre. They have helped to make the prog scene what it is today, with it's own monthly magazine.

Originally Posted by tore

For much of the prog I listen to, those elements are not really very good descriptors at all. Going by that list, Mighty Rhapsody is probably more prog than most of the prog I listen to!

Something that further complicates any want to rigidly define a genre like prog rock as anything is that once a band is considered prog, that label is also generally applied to much of that band's output, often even when it doesn't contain those elements.