Greatest Progressive Rock Album Of All Time Pt. 4: The Voting Carries On!

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Here's where it's going to get tough. Top 14, all of these albums had over 12 votes in the last poll. All five of Rush's golden period albums remain, and only five other bands have managed to get even one album this far. I was gong to cap the votes off at 5 for this round, but I've bumped it up to 6 so that even if you vote for all five Rush albums you can show one other band some love.

 

I really don't know what I'm going to do here.

[zepphead]

I chose one Rush album, Moving Pictures. Floyd,Yes,Tull and Genesis fight over the remaining 5 votes.

[Texas King]

I chose these 4:

Wish You Were Here

Hemispheres

Close to the Edge

ITCOTKC

[pjbear05]

Tough, indeed.

Moving Pictures

DSotM

Fragile

CttE

In the Court of the Crimson King

Thick - As a Brick

 

Lots of sacrificing here.

[Derek19]

From this group of fourteen, I've picked six. I didn't know if it would've been out of twenty, or twenty-two. It would've been similar from one hundred, and twenty to sixty. Edited October 5, 2020 by Derek19

[bathory]

what a surprising list! rush are strangely popular here

[bathory]

I voted against rush and floyd

[HemiBeers]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

[JohnnyBlaze]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

 

I do think genres are helpful to a great extent, but I get where you're coming from. Often we get so obsessed about accurately placing everything that every band starts to merit its own little genre. On the other hand, without genres we have a lot less information about music we'd like to try out. For example, you could describe both Judas Priest and Anthrax as having heavy guitar riffs, blistering solos, and high pitched operatic vocals, but my dad enjoys Judas Priest and dislikes Anthrax strongly. Obviously I left out some key information, but that information is pretty neatly summed up by placing the label "thrash" on Anthrax and not on Judas Priest so that my dad knows which one he might steer clear of in the future.

[JohnnyBlaze]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

 

I do think genres are helpful to a great extent, but I get where you're coming from. Often we get so obsessed about accurately placing everything that every band starts to merit its own little genre. On the other hand, without genres we have a lot less information about music we'd like to try out. For example, you could describe both Judas Priest and Anthrax as having heavy guitar riffs, blistering solos, and high pitched operatic vocals, but my dad enjoys Judas Priest and dislikes Anthrax strongly. Obviously I left out some key information, but that information is pretty neatly summed up by placing the label "thrash" on Anthrax and not on Judas Priest so that my dad knows which one he might steer clear of in the future.

 

That’s just not me. I’ve never rejected an artist simply because they were this or that genre. A lot of what I’ve tried are just based on recommendations - A friend saying “I think you might like this”. Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn’t.

 

If I rejected artists based on their supposed genres then I would’ve missed out on a lot of great music.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

 

I do think genres are helpful to a great extent, but I get where you're coming from. Often we get so obsessed about accurately placing everything that every band starts to merit its own little genre. On the other hand, without genres we have a lot less information about music we'd like to try out. For example, you could describe both Judas Priest and Anthrax as having heavy guitar riffs, blistering solos, and high pitched operatic vocals, but my dad enjoys Judas Priest and dislikes Anthrax strongly. Obviously I left out some key information, but that information is pretty neatly summed up by placing the label "thrash" on Anthrax and not on Judas Priest so that my dad knows which one he might steer clear of in the future.

 

That’s just not me. I’ve never rejected an artist simply because they were this or that genre. A lot of what I’ve tried are just based on recommendations - A friend saying “I think you might like this”. Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn’t.

 

If I rejected artists based on their supposed genres then I would’ve missed out on a lot of great music.

 

That's fair. I think it's safe to say though that if you've listened to maybe 6 or 7 different bands all supposedly belonging to the same sub-genre and you haven't liked any of them for similar reasons, you probably aren't a fan of that sub-genre. Alternatively, I think genre labels work in the opposite direction as well. Say I'm really interested in Italian bands playing a style of music similar to King Crimson, ELP, and Genesis from the early 70s (which, as it so happens, I am). I could try to type all of that into a search engine, but I would probably turn up a lot of unuseful results about ELP touring Italy in 1971 or something. I could also ask around online and in person, but I'd probably run into people who might know what kinds of bands I'm looking for, but not know much about ELP or King Crimson enough to say that the bands they know which I'm looking for are similar to them, or they might think they aren't similar at all while I might believe they are. It's a finicky system trying to determine what bands sound the most like each other or have the most shared appeal. I think its a bit easier (if less accurate) to fit broader genre and sub genre labels around things which seem similar enough or share enough appeal to merit it, that way potential fans can find the music they're looking for. So even though I don't think Premiata Forneria Marconi sounds very much like Le Orme, nor do either of them sound very much like ELP, they all seem to share in a family of qualities which are consistent with "progressive rock." So if I then start asking around about some "Italian progressive rock," even though I may have a different understanding of exactly what all that means compared to other people, I will probably find the music I'm looking for more readily than if I started asking for "Italian bands that sound like ELP, King Crimson, and Genesis."

 

That's just my experience though. If you get more mileage out searching for "bands that sound similar to bands you already like," more power to you.

[Lorraine]

Close To The Edge

 

Even Geddy would vote for it.

[JohnnyBlaze]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

 

I do think genres are helpful to a great extent, but I get where you're coming from. Often we get so obsessed about accurately placing everything that every band starts to merit its own little genre. On the other hand, without genres we have a lot less information about music we'd like to try out. For example, you could describe both Judas Priest and Anthrax as having heavy guitar riffs, blistering solos, and high pitched operatic vocals, but my dad enjoys Judas Priest and dislikes Anthrax strongly. Obviously I left out some key information, but that information is pretty neatly summed up by placing the label "thrash" on Anthrax and not on Judas Priest so that my dad knows which one he might steer clear of in the future.

 

That’s just not me. I’ve never rejected an artist simply because they were this or that genre. A lot of what I’ve tried are just based on recommendations - A friend saying “I think you might like this”. Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn’t.

 

If I rejected artists based on their supposed genres then I would’ve missed out on a lot of great music.

 

That's fair. I think it's safe to say though that if you've listened to maybe 6 or 7 different bands all supposedly belonging to the same sub-genre and you haven't liked any of them for similar reasons, you probably aren't a fan of that sub-genre. Alternatively, I think genre labels work in the opposite direction as well. Say I'm really interested in Italian bands playing a style of music similar to King Crimson, ELP, and Genesis from the early 70s (which, as it so happens, I am). I could try to type all of that into a search engine, but I would probably turn up a lot of unuseful results about ELP touring Italy in 1971 or something. I could also ask around online and in person, but I'd probably run into people who might know what kinds of bands I'm looking for, but not know much about ELP or King Crimson enough to say that the bands they know which I'm looking for are similar to them, or they might think they aren't similar at all while I might believe they are. It's a finicky system trying to determine what bands sound the most like each other or have the most shared appeal. I think its a bit easier (if less accurate) to fit broader genre and sub genre labels around things which seem similar enough or share enough appeal to merit it, that way potential fans can find the music they're looking for. So even though I don't think Premiata Forneria Marconi sounds very much like Le Orme, nor do either of them sound very much like ELP, they all seem to share in a family of qualities which are consistent with "progressive rock." So if I then start asking around about some "Italian progressive rock," even though I may have a different understanding of exactly what all that means compared to other people, I will probably find the music I'm looking for more readily than if I started asking for "Italian bands that sound like ELP, King Crimson, and Genesis."

 

That's just my experience though. If you get more mileage out searching for "bands that sound similar to bands you already like," more power to you.

 

My method of searching involves nothing you stated.

 

There are 5 artists on my special shelf of CDs: Rush, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Bob Dylan, and Jethro Tull. Some are similar, some couldn’t be more different. The Bobs I found through friends. Rush & Tull were my brothers’ influence. Pink Floyd I stumbled on just through late 70s and early 80s radio play.

 

I don’t use search engines to find music. Nothing wrong with that, I just don’t.

 

Labeling a band this or that doesn’t do anything for the music. It only helps (or not) someone find music and/or (here’s my negative bit) give someone a genre flag to stick a band with.

 

There’s a bluegrass band I found in the late 90s because I saw them play at some pub. They were awesome and I saw them play loads of times when I lived in that city. If I had been stuck in the mindset of “meh bluegrass, that’s not the genre of music I like”, I would’ve missed out on hours of gigs and decades of listening enjoyment.

Edited October 6, 2020 by JohnnyBlaze

[Entre_Perpetuo]

2112, Kings and Hemi are prog albums. I don't consider Permanent Waves or Moving Pictures prog albums. There I said it. Don't twist my words...PW and Moving Pictures ARE epic, just not prog IMO.

 

Yes, Crimson and ELP are more prog than Rush.

 

Deal with it.

 

I disagree. But that's what forums are for! :)

 

That’s my problem with putting bands into musical genres and sub genres - Bands almost always have influences from multiple sources of course so their music is bound to emulate elements of them. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if an artist is this or that so why even bother placing them into this or that cage of a genre?

 

I do think genres are helpful to a great extent, but I get where you're coming from. Often we get so obsessed about accurately placing everything that every band starts to merit its own little genre. On the other hand, without genres we have a lot less information about music we'd like to try out. For example, you could describe both Judas Priest and Anthrax as having heavy guitar riffs, blistering solos, and high pitched operatic vocals, but my dad enjoys Judas Priest and dislikes Anthrax strongly. Obviously I left out some key information, but that information is pretty neatly summed up by placing the label "thrash" on Anthrax and not on Judas Priest so that my dad knows which one he might steer clear of in the future.

 

That’s just not me. I’ve never rejected an artist simply because they were this or that genre. A lot of what I’ve tried are just based on recommendations - A friend saying “I think you might like this”. Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn’t.

 

If I rejected artists based on their supposed genres then I would’ve missed out on a lot of great music.

 

That's fair. I think it's safe to say though that if you've listened to maybe 6 or 7 different bands all supposedly belonging to the same sub-genre and you haven't liked any of them for similar reasons, you probably aren't a fan of that sub-genre. Alternatively, I think genre labels work in the opposite direction as well. Say I'm really interested in Italian bands playing a style of music similar to King Crimson, ELP, and Genesis from the early 70s (which, as it so happens, I am). I could try to type all of that into a search engine, but I would probably turn up a lot of unuseful results about ELP touring Italy in 1971 or something. I could also ask around online and in person, but I'd probably run into people who might know what kinds of bands I'm looking for, but not know much about ELP or King Crimson enough to say that the bands they know which I'm looking for are similar to them, or they might think they aren't similar at all while I might believe they are. It's a finicky system trying to determine what bands sound the most like each other or have the most shared appeal. I think its a bit easier (if less accurate) to fit broader genre and sub genre labels around things which seem similar enough or share enough appeal to merit it, that way potential fans can find the music they're looking for. So even though I don't think Premiata Forneria Marconi sounds very much like Le Orme, nor do either of them sound very much like ELP, they all seem to share in a family of qualities which are consistent with "progressive rock." So if I then start asking around about some "Italian progressive rock," even though I may have a different understanding of exactly what all that means compared to other people, I will probably find the music I'm looking for more readily than if I started asking for "Italian bands that sound like ELP, King Crimson, and Genesis."

 

That's just my experience though. If you get more mileage out searching for "bands that sound similar to bands you already like," more power to you.

 

My method of searching involves nothing you stated.

 

There are 5 artists on my special shelf of CDs: Rush, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Bob Dylan, and Jethro Tull. Some are similar, some couldn’t be more different. The Bobs I found through friends. Rush & Tull were my brothers’ influence. Pink Floyd I stumbled on just through late 70s and early 80s radio play.

 

I don’t use search engines to find music. Nothing wrong with that, I just don’t.

 

Labeling a band this or that doesn’t do anything for the music. It only helps (or not) someone find music and/or (here’s my negative bit) give someone a genre flag to stick a band with.

 

There’s a bluegrass band I found in the late 90s because I saw them play at some pub. They were awesome and I saw them play loads of times when I lived in that city. If I had been stuck in the mindset of “meh bluegrass, that’s not the genre of music I like”, I would’ve missed out on hours of gigs and decades of listening enjoyment.

 

You raise great points, and I certainly did forget to account for the oldest known method of finding new music, "asking friends what they listen to and checking it out." Genre has little to do with those discoveries I've found as well. My dad introduced me to Rush, sure, but also to James Taylor and David Wilcox, who couldn't be further removed. I love all three.

[goose]

Close To The Edge

 

Even Geddy would vote for it.

And he probably wouldn't vote for RUSH. Yes, Tull, Genesis, King Crimson, Floyd deserve the prog nod.