Favorite big-name progressive rock band?

[invisible airwave]

Floyd

 

Cliche answer, but true. They are to prog what Marley is to reggae.

[Silas Lang]

They're all (except KC) among my favorite bands but I'll go with the Floyd cuz of the Barrett factor

[Tommy Sawyer]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 9 2012, 03:52 PM)

The mighty King Crimson gets my vote.

 

 

King Crimson

 

Yes

Genesis

Pink Floyd

Jethro Tull

Emerson, Lake, and Palmer

[Nate2112]

Pink Floyd

Genesis

Yes

King Crimson

Jethro Tull

 

I've never bothered to check out ELP

[ColdFireYYZ]

QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM)

I've never bothered to check out ELP

Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut.

[Queslington]

QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM)

QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Queslington

[greg2112]

YES!

[driventotheedge]

Floyd by a wide margin. Tied with Rush for my 2nd fav all-time behind The Beatles.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM)

QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more.

[tjtull]

Jethro Tull

King Crimson

Pink Floyd

Yes

Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Genesis

Edited August 13, 2012 by tjtull

[ILSnwdog]

Early Genesis. The stuff after the self titled album make me

[StellarJetman]

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 13 2012, 10:02 PM)

Early Genesis. The stuff after the self titled album make me

So that's, what, two albums? (I haven't met a single person who actually thinks of Calling All Stations as a Genesis album.)

[presto123]

QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Aug 13 2012, 11:15 PM)

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 13 2012, 10:02 PM) Early Genesis.  The stuff after the self titled album make me So that's, what, two albums? (I haven't met a single person who actually thinks of Calling All Stations as a Genesis album.) Both those albums have some good stuff on there as well. Love songs like Dreaming While You Sleep, Driving The Last Spike, Domino.

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 13 2012, 10:54 AM)

QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM) QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more. I'm not clear on why you say Crimson deserved it more - the bottom line is ELP gave the people at the time what they wanted to hear and KC had a different singer/lineup on just about every album which probably didn't help them. What you call strident I would describe as intensity, which is one of my favorite aspects of ELP. On each of their classic albums, however, there would always be lighter moments - whether it was softer acoustic guitar ballads or piano interludes as well as their little humorous tracks (KC could've used a bit of humor now and again). If we're talking consistency, I've yet to hear one King Crimson album that even comes close to ELP's first five. Plus ELP's lyrics were a lot better.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 14 2012, 12:29 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 13 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM) QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more. I'm not clear on why you say Crimson deserved it more - the bottom line is ELP gave the people at the time what they wanted to hear and KC had a different singer/lineup on just about every album which probably didn't help them. What you call strident I would describe as intensity, which is one of my favorite aspects of ELP. On each of their classic albums, however, there would always be lighter moments - whether it was softer acoustic guitar ballads or piano interludes as well as their little humorous tracks (KC could've used a bit of humor now and again). If we're talking consistency, I've yet to hear one King Crimson album that even comes close to ELP's first five. Plus ELP's lyrics were a lot better. I don't understand a lot of the ELP hate I read on this site and others, but I gotta tell ya, I think all the versions of King Crimson kick ELP's butt. And the song "Cat Food" always makes me chuckle.

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 13 2012, 11:54 PM)

I don't understand a lot of the ELP hate I read on this site and others, but I gotta tell ya, I think all the versions of King Crimson kick ELP's butt. And the song "Cat Food" always makes me chuckle.

Well that's the exception. The only other example that really comes to mind is maybe 'Elephant Talk'. My point was simply that they didn't exactly seem to exude the sense of a fully developed sense of humor on any sort of regular basis whereas with ELP there was always that element of camp just below the surface. And for me, ELP wipes the floor with Crimson...we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 14 2012, 01:43 AM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 13 2012, 11:54 PM) I don't understand a lot of the ELP hate I read on this site and others, but I gotta tell ya, I think all the versions of King Crimson kick ELP's butt. And the song "Cat Food" always makes me chuckle. Well that's the exception. The only other example that really comes to mind is maybe 'Elephant Talk'. My point was simply that they didn't exactly seem to exude the sense of a fully developed sense of humor on any sort of regular basis whereas with ELP there was always that element of camp just below the surface. And for me, ELP wipes the floor with Crimson...we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. It's all good.   Anyway, I'll take "Larks' Tongues in Aspic (Part II)" over anything ELP ever recorded.

[Echoes]

Pink Floyd, but Yes is a VERY close second.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 13 2012, 09:29 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 13 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM) QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more. I'm not clear on why you say Crimson deserved it more - the bottom line is ELP gave the people at the time what they wanted to hear and KC had a different singer/lineup on just about every album which probably didn't help them. What you call strident I would describe as intensity, which is one of my favorite aspects of ELP. On each of their classic albums, however, there would always be lighter moments - whether it was softer acoustic guitar ballads or piano interludes as well as their little humorous tracks (KC could've used a bit of humor now and again). If we're talking consistency, I've yet to hear one King Crimson album that even comes close to ELP's first five. Plus ELP's lyrics were a lot better. Crimson deserved it more because they were simply a better more interesting band.   And if you're talking consistency, every KC album from ITCOTCK to Red, which was 7 albums, were all pretty great with the exception of Islands. So that's 6 albums that were really consistent, even though some were better than others.   ELP had far fewer great albums, and the consistency really suffered on many of them. What you call ballads or piano interludes or humorous tracks I would call bad, or at best boring. The stridency, or intensity, was cool, but for me it can wear after awhile.   I'm not saying ELP were bad. I actually like the band. They had a slew of truly great songs. It's just of this list of bands, they're easily the weakest.   And no, King Crimson didn't have a sense of humor. They were deadly serious. And they were one of the most important bands ever. Their music was groundbreaking and stunningly original.

[Silas Lang]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 14 2012, 01:37 AM)

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 13 2012, 09:29 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 13 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM) QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more. I'm not clear on why you say Crimson deserved it more - the bottom line is ELP gave the people at the time what they wanted to hear and KC had a different singer/lineup on just about every album which probably didn't help them. What you call strident I would describe as intensity, which is one of my favorite aspects of ELP. On each of their classic albums, however, there would always be lighter moments - whether it was softer acoustic guitar ballads or piano interludes as well as their little humorous tracks (KC could've used a bit of humor now and again). If we're talking consistency, I've yet to hear one King Crimson album that even comes close to ELP's first five. Plus ELP's lyrics were a lot better. Crimson deserved it more because they were simply a better more interesting band.   And if you're talking consistency, every KC album from ITCOTCK to Red, which was 7 albums, were all pretty great with the exception of Islands. So that's 6 albums that were really consistent, even though some were better than others.   ELP had far fewer great albums, and the consistency really suffered on many of them. What you call ballads or piano interludes or humorous tracks I would call bad, or at best boring. The stridency, or intensity, was cool, but for me it can wear after awhile.   I'm not saying ELP were bad. I actually like the band. They had a slew of truly great songs. It's just of this list of bands, they're easily the weakest.   And no, King Crimson didn't have a sense of humor. They were deadly serious. And they were one of the most important bands ever. Their music was groundbreaking and stunningly original. Whether they were better or more interesting is clearly debatable.   I've only heard 5 of those you're referring to. The 3 I like are Court, Poseidon and Red - all of which I feel lack this undeniable consistency you insist is there. On Court, the obvious offender is that looong experiment after 'Moonchild' - a waste of space if I've ever heard one. 'I Talk to the Wind' is a bit limp and twee as well. The rest of it's great as is Poseidon....until the Devil's Triangle bit that just pointlessly goes on and on without really going anywhere. Then there's Red - mostly great but again includes another tedious, aimless technical exercise known as 'Providence' (at least they kept it to less than 10 minutes this time). You may find it great and interesting, but I feel no great sense of emotion or passion from it. The other 2, Lizard and Islands, are pretty much duds to me - with Lizard being marginally better.   I happen to think ELP's first 5 are all great, start to finish. Are you calling songs like Lucky Man, From The Beginning, Take A Pebble and The Endless Enigma bad/boring?   If King Crimson gets the recognition for being innovative and original, then I don't understand why ELP shouldn't get the same sort of respect, especially considering the fact that Greg Lake was a founding member of both and Crimson, in my view, floundered for awhile after his departure.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Silas Lang

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (StellarJetman @ Aug 13 2012, 11:15 PM)

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 13 2012, 10:02 PM) Early Genesis.  The stuff after the self titled album make me So that's, what, two albums? (I haven't met a single person who actually thinks of Calling All Stations as a Genesis album.) I was referring to this.   http://whitgunn.freeservers.com/Davemusic/G/genesis/genesis.jpg

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 14 2012, 01:07 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 14 2012, 01:37 AM) QUOTE (Silas Lang @ Aug 13 2012, 09:29 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Aug 13 2012, 10:54 AM) QUOTE (Queslington @ Aug 11 2012, 11:45 AM) QUOTE (ColdFireYYZ @ Aug 11 2012, 12:39 PM) QUOTE (Nate2112 @ Aug 11 2012, 10:50 AM) I've never bothered to check out ELP Most people here would tell you not to bother, but check out Tarkus and the self-titled debut. A lot of people here seem to dislike them, but I really like them. They are about as prog as it gets. Listen to Karn Evil 9 and Tarkus. ELP are great, but often with them, like Dylan, a little can go a long way. Their music can be a bit strident after awhile. That said, they do have a lot of GREAT songs, but suffered from mostly inconsistent albums. It's too bad King Crimson never achieved their level of popularity as they deserved it more. I'm not clear on why you say Crimson deserved it more - the bottom line is ELP gave the people at the time what they wanted to hear and KC had a different singer/lineup on just about every album which probably didn't help them. What you call strident I would describe as intensity, which is one of my favorite aspects of ELP. On each of their classic albums, however, there would always be lighter moments - whether it was softer acoustic guitar ballads or piano interludes as well as their little humorous tracks (KC could've used a bit of humor now and again). If we're talking consistency, I've yet to hear one King Crimson album that even comes close to ELP's first five. Plus ELP's lyrics were a lot better. Crimson deserved it more because they were simply a better more interesting band.   And if you're talking consistency, every KC album from ITCOTCK to Red, which was 7 albums, were all pretty great with the exception of Islands. So that's 6 albums that were really consistent, even though some were better than others.   ELP had far fewer great albums, and the consistency really suffered on many of them. What you call ballads or piano interludes or humorous tracks I would call bad, or at best boring. The stridency, or intensity, was cool, but for me it can wear after awhile.   I'm not saying ELP were bad. I actually like the band. They had a slew of truly great songs. It's just of this list of bands, they're easily the weakest.   And no, King Crimson didn't have a sense of humor. They were deadly serious. And they were one of the most important bands ever. Their music was groundbreaking and stunningly original. Whether they were better or more interesting is clearly debatable.   I've only heard 5 of those you're referring to. The 3 I like are Court, Poseidon and Red - all of which I feel lack this undeniable consistency you insist is there. On Court, the obvious offender is that looong experiment after 'Moonchild' - a waste of space if I've ever heard one. 'I Talk to the Wind' is a bit limp and twee as well. The rest of it's great as is Poseidon....until the Devil's Triangle bit that just pointlessly goes on and on without really going anywhere. Then there's Red - mostly great but again includes another tedious, aimless technical exercise known as 'Providence' (at least they kept it to less than 10 minutes this time). You may find it great and interesting, but I feel no great sense of emotion or passion from it. The other 2, Lizard and Islands, are pretty much duds to me - with Lizard being marginally better.   I happen to think ELP's first 5 are all great, start to finish. Are you calling songs like Lucky Man, From The Beginning, Take A Pebble and The Endless Enigma bad/boring?   If King Crimson gets the recognition for being innovative and original, then I don't understand why ELP shouldn't get the same sort of respect, especially considering the fact that Greg Lake was a founding member of both and Crimson, in my view, floundered for awhile after his departure. The boring I was referring to were some of the material on Pictures at an Exhibition, as well as other songs I can't recall right now because I haven't heard them in awhile, but none of which are what you mentioned. The bad are songs like Benny the Bouncer, Bitches Crystal, Living Sin, etc., etc. With the exception of maybe the first album, they just couldn't get through an album without one or often several real duds. And even when they're consistent, it's so intense and hard going sometimes that I can only handle a few songs at a time.   And I agree that Providence isn't Crimson at their best, but everything else on that album is outstanding. I love Moonchild.   Anyway, as I've said a couple of times now, I really like ELP. They have some great songs, some truly great songs. They just run a distant last among this list.   Debatable? Maybe to you, but most here I think would agree that Crimson is the better band.

[metaldad]

I love Carl Palmer, one of my favs . I really like ELP but for me , i really like a song or i really dislike a song, no middle ground for me . Huge band in the 70's , arenas and football stadiums . I think it's a shame KC was not bigger but they were a theater band . I never understood why more people that were into Yes were never into them . Yes did 2 or 3 shows in arenas in the same city for years

[ILSnwdog]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 01:22 PM)

I think it's a shame KC was not bigger but they were a theater band .

KC? Are you shitting me man?

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RGiQzzYVH9M/T1KxuK8qrAI/AAAAAAAAEpU/ymirHxMfOVc/s1600/kc-and-the-sunshine-band-boogie-man.jpg

[metaldad]

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 14 2012, 01:26 PM)

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 01:22 PM) I think it's a shame KC was not bigger but they were a theater band . KC? Are you shitting me man?   http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RGiQzzYVH9M/T1KxuK8qrAI/AAAAAAAAEpU/ymirHxMfOVc/s1600/kc-and-the-sunshine-band-boogie-man.jpg Now they were a BIG band................