Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

More Mention of Postpunk bands

I think there needs more mentioning between the relationship between Progressive rock and Post-Punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerpyMcDerp (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed this as well as I can, but all I've been able to dig up is that certain bands were influenced by Can or Roxy Music. I haven't been able to find any specifics such as what aspect of Can's or Roxy Music's style was an influence on which band. Certainly the tendency toward electronics is derived from bands like Kraftwerk, but I'm not optimistic about finding good sources. Brian Eno and Kraftwerk seem to be the only two names that pop up on both sides of the divide. No wave might also show some influence, but information seems to be even more scarce. Musician, Player and Listener magazine had an article around 1980/1981 about the new art-rock bands. It covered several bands that included Simple Minds and, IIRC, Joy Division. Anyone who has access to a library with back issues of that magazine, please help. Dementia13 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The name of the genre "progressive rock"

When, and who named this genre "progressive rock" at first? Japanese wikipedia says that the A&R man of Pink Floyd in Japan did it in early 1970s. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.169.248.167 (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a magazine interview somewhere with Robert Fripp from 1969 where he describes King Crimson as 'Progressive'. Anyone know the exact source? There was also an LP released in 1969 which had bands like Genesis and the Moody Blues and actually had "progressive Rock" on the sleeve. Also in 1969 Caravan's then-current LP said on the sleeve that it was "Progressive Rock". Take your pick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.172.84 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I would argue that the term, "Progressive Rock", mirrored the verbiage that "Acid Rock" or Psychedelic styles of music in the mid 1960s (1965 The Grateful Dead). Many other terms floated around in the late 1960s like "Classical Rock" after 1966 with the eclectic Zappa album, Freak Out, and the Beatles Revolver album, or 1967 (Moody Blues The Days of Future Past), and 1968's Tommy by the Who. The term, "Progressive Rock" is more of a fall out term generated by fans and the music industry. Popular Music and become "electric" like Bob Dylan in 1965. So much was happening in the music industry that I am not sure that the term, "Progressive Rock", was even used prior to about 1975. The Soft Machine were considered a Psychedelic group in 1967 and bill that way on posters from England in 1966, 1967, and in 1968 in USA.The Budzone guy 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

As an aside, I recall (in the era) that the term "Prog Rock" was considered derisive, and strongly avoided by fans of the style. (Sorry, no source.) Might be worth considering using the full name in the article (or noting, if sources can be found) that the shorter label became more common in retrospective usage. 69.234.105.190 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I will never understand this..when I started listening to what was then called Underground Rock around 1972 which was called in the business AOR everyone called it Progressive Rock which was just anything that wasn`t on top 40 I worked at a college radio station that played everything but according to the FCC we played " light progressive music " as opposed to "heavy" ? I don`t know..eventually they started calling it Alternative..then Modern Rock when the heavy metal bands started coming in..then Indie..then College Rock but it was all the same thing...as I remember at the time what people called bands like ELP Genesis etc was either classical..not classic...rock or electronic rock..I never saw theses bands referred to as progressive rock until relatively recently now its accepted without question..I don`t understand that...not that it`s important..I just find it odd. --Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Progressive" referred to post-new-wave rock like The Church in the late 1980s, so it must have gotten its current meaning sometime after that. I never saw the term before around 2000. The genre was known by several names through the years, and it would be good to have some kind of timeline of these. Dementia13 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The term was used from about 1968 to refer to what we now call psychedelic rock played by independent counter culture stations in the US. About 1970 it took the current meaning of a specific genre expanding the boundaries of rock. Macan deals with this on page 26. This is probably something that deserves a section. I will put something together over the weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the existing references actually mentions the term dating to 1968, so I'll work that in. It gives no further detail, however. Dementia13 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

The following was left on my talk page and really belongs here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information in new movements in progressive rock / related genres

As you may have noticed there has been a recent surge in interest in progressive music by musicians & fans alike.As a long time follower of Progressive Rock since around 1977 I feel that Wikipedia does not fully represent this current trent very well at all.This is disappointing as I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be a primary resourse for information.As it can be updated immediately you would think it would contain the most up to date general information guide (yes, there are far more detailed information out there from niche orientated internet sites). In recent times there have been many musicians that have, perhaps come from different genres of music that have taken influences from Progressive Rock itself & other genres that have been influenced by it i.e. Metal, Post-Punk, New Wave, certain areas of Alternative Rock, Post-rock, Math rock etc & other genres of music & experimented with these influences to create fresh sounding forms of music, which is outlined quite well in the Progressive Rock entry.As you may know rock music is struggling to gain any sort of traction at the moment.Many people believe rock music is dying because all musical approaching that rock music can take have been exhausted.As you may know?, however, this is of course not true.The main problem with new developements in rock music is that many rock oriented listeners don't get to hear new sounds or don't seem to have access to information so they can make 'an informed' decision on whether they like the sound of something or not. My main complaint is that you & Bondegezou in particular seem to want to suppress information getting out to the masses for your own particular reasons, instead of objective reasons.I now there are rules as regards Wikipedia are concerned, but I feel you are showing an element of bias in being over vigorous in, supposedly, following these rules.The deletion of the New Prog / Post Prog page being an obvious example & merging it with the Progressive Rock page but taking alot of information that was on that page off Wikipedia altogether.This is strange as you still seem to recognise that there has been is a vague New Prog / Post Prog movement with the merge.Remember Post-Punk & New Wave movement's were very vague genre related movement's as well.Garage rock being another one - a term never actually used during the mid-60's - a retrospective term used from around 1972.Detroit metro rock seems to be used more often to describe this area of rock.My point is that I'm not particulary interested in what a developement of music is called - just that Wikipedia represents it in some way, which other internet sites do with the obvious misrepresentations of course.Isn't it easier for you to insert a side note if information is disputed rather than eliminating important reference material altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

until you have consensus here, Your original research additions to the article will be removed. Ridernyc (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Post prog? I've heard of post-rock, which is often grouped into progressive rock, but progressive music will always be progressive music... It's half as much a genre as it is a structure of songwriting, and so almost all genres are capable of being progressive... But that doesn't create new genres. The one's you have listed, such as post-punk and new wave, are great examples: They were not recognized as genres of music until at least 5 or 10 years after they came into being.

So, unfortunately that may be the case here as well. We don't make the news here, we just summarize verifiable information. Until multiple reliable sources claim the existence of such a genre, it's just the opinion of the occasional listener.

However, in regards to the bands being covered: Yes, many deserve articles that do not have one, and the obscurity of progressive rock means they are quickly brought up for deletion. All the reliable sources (Such as DPRP) are discredited as being a blog or some equally ridiculous and/or ignorant excuse, which is something that can only be changed by having more editors work on the subject. Take a look at WP:PROGROCK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Reflections of Darkness[[1]] site also classified as a blog site, they call themselves a webzine - just looked through their crew http://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/site-info-mainmenu-111/crew-mainmenu-125.html - that's quite alot of people / not a small time organisation.They've been mentioned on Wikipedia here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashbury_Heights#Kari.27s_d.C3.A9but_.282009.29 & here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krank_(song)#Reception. If it's a veritable source could I / someone else add the citation needed for Anathema to be included in the New Prog / Post-Prog paragraph http://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/artists-a-e-cdreviews-131/11404-cd-review-anathema-weather-systems.html--talk •Scratchy7929 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Eli. I think the page should contain a visual map showing the genres over time, such as http://www.e-prog.net/images/web/progmap.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.248.2 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

United States

One would think from reading this article that the US had no interest in progressive rock other than Frank Zappa, Todd Rundgren and Kansas. The exclusion of the west coast bands like The Grateful Dead, and psychedelic-tinged acts like Santana, Mountain, Vanilla Fudge, and many others is distorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.150.232 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Find reliable sources and add to help article Edkollin (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not be confused: psychedelic music and bands were a hotbed for prog music, but themselves are NOT prog. The acts you mention were a different breed altogether. The Dead, for instance, have always been and remained a psychedelic jam band, Zappa would have laughed all this off himself, Rundgren maybe but only to a certain extent, Kansas and Mountain did some prog at some point, as well as Rush, but they were far removed from the bulk of the prog era which was a British-European only movement. Santana I don't even know why you included him. So to answer your question, yes, we all think the US did not have much interest in classic prog 1967/1976, except appreciating it, but as far as producing it, not really. It wasn't an American thing. Glam was, istead. Just as good.

Max Ventura, Italy.

Discussion about how many bands we want to list as examples.

Hey, my name is Mark. And I was wondering about something. If you probably did notice, most of the edits here are users putting in bands as examples, or sometimes even self promoting. Should we have a rule for how many bands we should list as examples. Not the make the page so messy, I suggest we could either semi-protect the page, or something. Just bringing this up as an observation.

McLennonSon (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not a regular contributor to this article but am to other music genre articles. This is a universal problem in genre articles. Everybody seems to want to see their "favorite" act or enter what they see an "obvious" band that is not listed. After awhile these articles become unreadable with little difference from the list articles which is created for that purpose
• I would just delete the non reliably and non sourced acts for starters. What I try to do in the articles I am more involved in is keep it down to 3-5 of the most notable/important/popular acts for each sub-genre etc. It is a sometimes daily battle because each situation is different and deciding between acts deemed notable/important/popular by reliable sources is not an easy call. Edkollin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well... I HAD to include Gong and Caravan in the list example. How could anyone leave them out? The whole Canterbury school? And who put Kansas in? Come on, Kansas were never in the prog rock map. They were an American rock band affine to Boston and Journey, none of which had anything to do with prog. I don't really wanna have an edit war here over who should be in the list or not, but really, I am a decently informed contributor, expecially in this genre, and I can vouch for the fact that if ever Kansas and Rush did prog rock epics (which I admit they did, but to a certain extent only), they were never in the wider map, and certainly should not be in a short list of examples. And to be perfectly clear, I wouldn't include Jethros, too, or M. Oldfield. They both did a couple of prog rock albums each, but they both quickly reverted to their roots (folk-rock-blues in the case of Jethro Tull). Oh,. and another thing: E.L.O.?????? I LOVE Electric Light orchestra, they were one of my favs ever, but no sir, they were NEVER even close to prog rock, not even in the sense that they employed classical synphonic instruments in their arrangements. The result was totally different from prog bands in the way they uded violins and cellos. trust me, ELO were a pop-rock band, they were in for the songs, not for the 15-mins. epics.

Finally, I did trim down the list to the 10 most succesful acts, and to those who did prog all the time, excluding the ones who did it for a time only, for instance Pink Floyd, who were always their own thing, and only marginally did a couple of vaguely prog-tinged albums between 1070/72. See the item below, "The bands listed as examples, and the albums thereof", which I compiled. Max Ventura, Italy.

Lists like these quickly turn into lists of trivia, and these are subject for immediate removal wherever they occur. Here's a suggestion for the future: Don't list any examples. Write about progressive rock. In the process of writing about progressive rock, you may come across a bit of research that shows how a certain band innovated, how they influenced other bands, or how they achieved a significant level of popularity. Work those facts into the article. That guarantees that the bands mentioned are named only because they are relevant and important to this particular article. Anything else is off-topic. The bands all have their own pages, anyway. Is there not a separate "List of progressive rock bands" page? That's the only place that should contain a list of examples. Dementia13 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Roxy Music - a progressive rock group?

In a lot of books, and internet and magazine articles Roxy Music is listed as a progressive rock group. Why is that? Can't think of a group that matches this category worse. They're lightyears from Yes, Genesis and all those, musically.
Or is it things I have overlooked? They got a couple of longer and more experimental tracks on the two first albums, OK. (In Every Dreamhome A Heartache etc.) But not anymore so than any other rock band of their era. (Quite similar sounding David Bowie has never been branded as a prog rock artist). Or was they playing very long and experimental jams at their early 71-73 concert?
Needs feedback from the author of this article and maybe other readers too. Because the "prog rock label" is truely a mystery to me?

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.128.106.111 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Stein, you are partly right. Roxy were not a prog-rock band, rather a glam-rock, or art-rock one, but they did have something more than other glam acts of the time, they experimented more expecuially when Eno was in the house. After that, they kept a style of their own.

Max, Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.156.191.81 (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Progressive rock" is a relatively new name for what was once called "art rock." Roxy Music was considered to be an art rock band because of their experimental nature, especially when Brian Eno was in the band. You're trying to define progressive rock in terms of certain bands' sound, but the genre is actually more about having great stylistic freedom than it is about such a narrow definition. Henry Cow also sounds nothing like Yes, but nobody argues their inclusion. An example similar to Roxy would be someone like 10cc, who had a lot of success with pop singles but who also experimented with sound collages and extended compositions. Dementia13 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The bands listed as examples, and the albums thereof

I eventually trimmed down the list to a maximum of 10 names, the most successful or critically regarded ones, according to this very main article and other literature, which I am fresh off reading. Also, I compiled a side-list of acts partially associated with it. I think more names than 10 in the main list would mean stretching it. Many acts were not really successful or remained very obscure and omnly enjoyed local following. In the main list are the ones who were more closely associated with the movement, who lived and died within it, and who basically built their careers on the genre, with Van Der Graaf being the minor (any less successful than them, not on the list). In the case of Genesis, Yes and the Crimsons, anyone arguing that they did live on after 1976, when prog died, should be reminded that in that year span they all disbanded, then regrouped with changed line-ups and did different music onwards. I moved to the second list the acts who only did prog-tinged albums for some time and were never "into" the style, such as Pink Floyd (I am sure all PF fans will convene on this), and Oldfield, who should be rather more closely associated with New Age. I am skeptical on Jethro Tull, too, a folk-rock act who only stumbled on prog and did it more as a parody than else, for no more than 2 albums. Oh and by the way, to clear that out, this well-balanced list is NOT based on my personal taste or opinions, I assure you. I have been rather thoughtful. I did not include any non-British acts for the simplest of the reasons: they all were less popular than the last name on the main list. Can't include everyone. Finally, I added a "most significant albums" list. Now, for all three lists I based my choices on the very good book by C. Rizzi, "Progressive & Underground 1967/1976", published 1999/2006 in Florence by Giunti. Like I said before, the lists are not about my personal tastes or opinions, I merged research by numerous published sources that all seemed to go in the same direction. Max Ventura, Italy.

The lists are entirely about your personal tastes and opinions. You've managed to back up your opinions with sources that agree with you, but that doesn't validate your opinions as the only "correct" ones. Balance means including sources that acknowledge the opposing viewpoint. I'm going to move the list to a separate page that will be a list of all progressive rock bands, and it will not have any subjective divisions such as "bands who, in somebody's opinion, only visited the genre for one or two albums." The article's purpose is to inform, and it's more informative to show how broadly the genre reaches than it is to enforce a narrow definition, which only promotes elitism. Dementia13 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Mars Volta & "New" Prog?

I don't seem to understand this genre that they're apparently involved with, it's not included on the band page either. New-prog says it describes alternative/experimental bands who use elements from Prog-Rock, yet I don't see how The Mars Volta can be Alternative or anywhere close as I consider them pure Progressive Rock. On the other hand, Prog-Rock derives from Experimental Rock. 99.248.120.62 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably just another coined genre name for separating classic prog (KC, ELP, Genesis, Yes, etc) from new prog that doesn't fall into the sappier (and often Christian) neo-prog label. TMV are just latin-influenced progressive rock. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit/changes

Hi, all. This was tagged as needing a copy edit and I picked up the job. During edits, I often post on the talk page where there's something that could use attention from one of the article's maintainers. Dementia13 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I see a big issue with reliability of sources. Right away, I'm looking at a section called "Characteristics" that is largely drawn from progarchives.com. That almost certainly doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source and, worse yet, it's mostly plagiarized word-for-word from an article that itself is a plagiarism. I'm tempted to simply delete the section, but it's an important kind of section to have in this kind of article. "Characteristics" seems like a weird heading, though. Maybe we need to look at some of the articles on musical genres that are at GA or FA status to see how they handle it. We certainly don't need the subheadings of "Form" and "Rhythm" and the like, at least not unless they are more substantial than what they presently are. And they should be. Dementia13 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Punk rock and Heavy metal music are FAs that use sections labeled "Characteristics." I'll leave it as such, but I'm reorganizing the subsections, which aren't even consistent. These subtopics really need deeper treatment than the kind of glancing mention they're given here. Dementia13 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks a lot better than it did. Now it reads more like distinct paragraphs than disparate bullet points.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I undid one change that I think you made, which was the indent on "Lyrical themes." It seems more appropriate to keep lyrics and music separate instead of making lyrics a subsection of music. Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also skeptical of allmusic.com as a source. That's used here several times on its own and several more times in plagiarized form in the progarchives.com article. [rant] The reason for insisting on good sources is so that we can have a good article that is useful to the reader and free from edit wars because it's not just some jackass' opinion. Reliable sources are ones that have some editorial control. Without that, the sources themselves are just some jackass' opinion. That's why blog sources are not acceptable. The allmusic.com article even admits to containing opinion and hearsay, and I take that as the author's admission that he's not a subject matter expert. This is a problem with prog: It tends to be ignored by the reputable critics, so good reference sources can be rare. We still have to dig for them, or else these articles are no better than myths and urban legends.[/end rant]. Dementia13 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally Allmusic is considered reliable for essays, but not for not for thinks like lists of genres or "top" albums, acts etc. For many genres Allmusic is one of the few sources available, but this genre is not lacking in academic studies like Macan and Martin and those would be much better sources. I have access to Macan online and I have ordered a copy of Martin, so I may be able to help with replacement of unreliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already replaced and expanded a lot of the material using Macan as a source, and when it's exhausted I'll move on to another. Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• The lead suggests that prog faded as punk became popular. Can this be demonstrated, or is it more likely that the most popular prog bands had either broken up or changed direction by the late 1970s? Dementia13 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the common conception, however, most of the big bands (Floyd and Tull for example) seem to have carried on unaffected. I have read that the change was that there were no new bands - either because they formed punk bands or couldn't get recording contracts, but I will have to try to source that.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks Dementia13 for your work and comments so far. I will probably come back and comment on individual points when I have more time, but I wanted to make sure you knew that your posted are not being ignored.--SabreBD (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point of having separate lists of "Progressive rock acts" and "Bands associated...at some point in their career"? On the second list there's Jethro Tull, who were a blues band for about two years and a prog band for about, what, forty years? By that standard, Yes, Renaissance and the Moody Blues belong on that second list. As do Split Enz and Krokus, wrap your mind around that. This may be a moot point, because that list probably should not exist and should be split off into its own page, but there's a hint of elitism in classifying certain bands as "part-time proggers," and the division is being made arbitrarily. Dementia13 (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any point in separate lists. The truth is I do not care much for list of bands in articles, and prefer to move them to separate articles, to avoid this kind of problem.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the list of "landmark albums," which is completely subjective, and the list of bands will get its own page. That list will not have any kind of subjective division: If a band ever made a progressive rock album at any point in their career, even Krokus and Styx, they go on the list. Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the lists to their own page. Any sections that amount to nothing more than lists of names, with no supporting context, are likely to get ditched. Examples include the final paragraph of the "Europe" section and the "Festivals" section. Dementia13 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of well-chosen audio examples might be a good idea. Maybe a clip from one that is an adaptation of an orchestral work, like ELP's "Toccata," one from Dixie Dregs that shows how eclectic the genre can be, and one of something seriously experimental like Can. Dementia13 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If non-free samples are gong to be used they are probably best mentioned in the text as particularly significant or they may fall foul of minimum use.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to include an example unless it demonstrates a point. Like the ones above, or a demonstration of classical forms adapted to progressive rock, like figured bass in "Close to the Edge" or a fugue by Gentle Giant. Isn't there a minimum length under which an audio file is acceptable? Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into this, and excerpts of 30 sec. and under are acceptable. I'll put together a few that illustrate points from the article. Dementia13 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I tagged a statement in "Rhythm & harmony" as dubious. The problem is that the statement is poorly sourced and is contradicted by a better source I've found. It currently says that sixth, seventh and extended chords are common. The new source says that seventh and extended chords are uncommon and that prog tends not to be particularly harmonically complex. Personal observation agrees with the latter, except in the case of the kind of harmonically shifting figures that Kansas and Dream Theater like to use. Prog otherwise tends to be modal and has relatively static chord progressions. I'm keeping an eye out for a second source to clarify this, so if anybody spots one, have at. Dementia13 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The images chosen could be more meaningful. Try to dig up some images that back up the page's points: sheet music, pictures of instruments, things like that. Pictures of bands are nice but they don't illustrate or improve the article. Dementia13 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Images are always a problem because of the minimum use issue. Images of bands on stage tend to be free use on the Commons, it is often hard (but not impossible) to make a case for album covers (pretty significant here - I think). Instruments might be possible if they are exceptional - an early Moog might fit the bill, for example.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A minimoog or Mellotron. Or a close-up of someone playing a Mellotron. Or Eddie Jobson or Robby Steinhardt on violin, to demonstrate the use of non-rock instruments. It might not be hard to find a picture of Keith Emerson's Moog modular. A shot of Emo stabbing his keyboard might be a good variation on the "pictures of bands" idea. Anything with a more meaningful context. Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

One further point - why did we change the reference system. I really do not like this system, which does not resemble a scholarly system and makes it hard to match page numbers and books, and it is probably the sort of change that needs some discussion here first.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We changed the reference system? I use MLA format. I didn't pay attention to how existing references were done. Some of the existing references use wiki templates. If you ever copy edit a page, you'll learn quickly why I loathe those- it's hard to find the actual text among that sea of markup. They also make you mouse too much- they'll screw up your wrist. What change do you mean? Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section titled "References," which lists a half-dozen or so books? None of those are tied to any in-line citations, so they might as well not be listed for all the purpose they serve. They should be moved to "Further reading." My citation format follows MLA standards and is consistent with the other references here, except that it provides the kind of information that reviewers are going to look for if the article gets submitted for GAN. Dementia13 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that this:

be replaced by this:

.

There are already a lot of band pictures, but the Wakeman picture shows 1) him dressed in a robe, for which Yes was known, and 2) programming a Minimoog while 3) surrounded by keyboards. That's three aspects of the genre in one image, plus Wakeman himself. The visible photo credit needs removed, but that's no problem. A good Yes photo would be one that shows a Roger Dean-designed stage set. Dementia13 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Or alternatively, keep the Yes photo but move it, along with some of the other band photos, to a photo gallery somewhere in the page. That will make room for some images that illustrate article concepts but will preserve the existing images. Dementia13 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Rhythm and harmony- "dubious" tag

• I tagged a statement in "Rhythm & harmony" as dubious. The problem is that the statement is poorly sourced and is contradicted by a better source I've found. It currently says that sixth, seventh and extended chords are common. The new source says that seventh and extended chords are uncommon and that prog tends not to be particularly harmonically complex. Personal observation agrees with the latter, except in the case of the kind of harmonically shifting figures that Kansas and Dream Theater like to use. Prog otherwise tends to be modal and has relatively static chord progressions. I'm keeping an eye out for a second source to clarify this, so if anybody spots one, have at. Dementia13 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved Dementia13 (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyond and Before recent book on genre

http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133175&SubjectId=1381&Subject2Id=1396

No real place in this article for external links so I will leave it to the article veterans for placement if anyt

Added external link section for this. Edkollin (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I got it and it doesn't really follow the widely-recognised definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.204 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. There still must be some relevant information, and the very reason whether it does or doesn't follow any "widely-recognized definition" may itself be illuminating. No two sources are in complete agreement over things like which fringe or hybrid bands are or aren't prog, when the "classic era" began and ended, etc. Dementia13 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I found it and will use as much of it as I can. Dementia13 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture change

I'd like to propose that this: [[File:yes concert.jpg|thumb|center|top|upright=0.5|alt=Alt]

be replaced by this:

.

There are already a lot of band pictures, but the Wakeman picture shows 1) him dressed in a robe, for which Yes was known, and 2) programming a Minimoog while 3) surrounded by keyboards. That's three aspects of the genre in one image, plus Wakeman himself. The visible photo credit needs removed, but that's no problem. A good Yes photo would be one that shows a Roger Dean-designed stage set. Dementia13 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Or alternatively, keep the Yes photo but move it, along with some of the other band photos, to a photo gallery somewhere in the page. That will make room for some images that illustrate article concepts but will preserve the existing images. Dementia13 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I take the point about the Yes picture, but it is contemporary. Also I dislike the photographer's name being on the Wakeman picture. I would also prefer not to have a gallery, they usually break the guidelines at WP:Galleries about relevance.--SabreBD (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The photographer's name is the photo credit that needs removed. The page where the picture is uploaded has a tag requesting that be done, and the uploader has given permission. I'll just see if I can make the article long enough to make the Wakeman picture fit. Unlike any of the band photos, it illustrates article points. I almost jammed it in there today, near the Emerson picture, but I had forgotten that the name needed removed and I wasn't ready to get involved with that at the moment. Dementia13 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes picture and Wakeman picture are now both on the page Dementia13 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: list and/or web links of Prog Rock magazines

Hi all, as yet I haven't come accross a reasonable list of print magazines about progressive rock in the internet (amazon.com does have a search function but it only includes a fraction of the magazines in print, probably due to legal reasons).
   I think a list of online and/or print magazines would be a valuable extension to the article. Alternatively, it could be put into an extra article.
   I'd also like to begin with a few google search results. Any ideas/feedback? --WikiReviewer.de (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, there may be some debate as to what a "Prog magazine" is precisely... Baroque n Roll (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised if such magazines, which would tend to be small, independent publications, would have distribution through Amazon. I think the big problem with this idea is that these magazines come and go, so you wind up with a lot of dead links. Dementia13 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Festivals

I took the pruning shears to the Festivals section. There were a whole lot of festivals listed there for which there was no attendant article, many were unsourced, and those that were had merely a link to the webpage for the festival. This is not sufficient. Such a link only proves that the festival exists, it says nothing about its notability. I left those entries that had WP articles, but the future of that section should be discussed here before anything is added to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That section is turning into nothing more than a list. Maybe it needs its own list page. Dementia13 (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just a heads up I will be cleaning this up in the near future. Anything unreferenced, or improperly refernced will be removed . Anything that is simply a name drop of band X and not actually about the genre will be removed. The endless growing lists of band any time an example is given will be cut back. Ridernyc (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. I have been thinking that this was overdue.--SabreBD (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's so bad I may just take it userspace for a hatchet job and then present it here. The more you look at the more you find little things that slipped in. Ridernyc (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a first stab at an edit here [2]. Removed tons of stuff that was just name dropping bands with no real commentary on the genre. There was also an entire section called "Early Bands" that just listed band after band.. With no substantive discussion of the genre. Feel free to make comments. Ridernyc (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"proposed merge"

Someone seems to have drive-by tagged Progressive rock and Symphonic rock with a merge tag. That's not how it's supposed to work. If you want to propose to merge two articles, you should actually propose it on the talk page, and explain why, so that consensus can be reached, not just tag with no explanation. For my part I would say that it might not be a good idea to merge the articles since they're both pretty long and a distinction must evidently be made. If the differences in styles can be adequately explained in one article, so be it, but just judging by the level of influence in Symphonic rock at a glance it would seem notability is not the issue here. I don't really know about the subject, so I can't speak to how things could be written into one article and yet keep people from being confused about the distinction in genre. I'm going to remove the merge tag, since no one discussed it in so many months at all, but if someone puts the tag back, at least this is somewhere you could start the discussion. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Symphonic rock is a subgenre worthy of more detailed discussion than this article can give it. The symphonic rock article is presently not in very good shape, but a merge is not the answer. Dementia13 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

It's very common for readers to add their own favorite band name to the page somewhere, so I'm proposing to nominate this page for semi-protected status. That will hopefully cut down on some of the accumulations of list trivia. This is probably best done after cleanup is finished at the end of May, because it helps the case if a high percentage of the edits are vandalism, and most of the edits currently are cleanup. Dementia13 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible bibliography help

I found this website with an extensive prog bibliography. It might be able to help in finding sources for the article. http://www.progbibliography.de/ --Dagko (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That page has some popups/spam. It's a good list, if one can actually access those books. I've placed every relevant book on hold at the county library. Dementia13 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit complete

This actually was not a copy edit, so don't expect the same treatment on every page tagged for copy editing :) From a copy editing standpoint, the correct thing would have been to tag the page as having deeper issues that needed resolved before a copy edit could even happen, but I went ahead and did that work myself. I've got some further references coming in, and once I've mined those I'll submit the page for GAN].

These are the issues I brought up during the edit that have not yet been resolved:

One further point - why did we change the reference system. I really do not like this system, which does not resemble a scholarly system and makes it hard to match page numbers and books, and it is probably the sort of change that needs some discussion here first.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We changed the reference system? I use MLA format. I didn't pay attention to how existing references were done. Some of the existing references use wiki templates. If you ever copy edit a page, you'll learn quickly why I loathe those- it's hard to find the actual text among that sea of markup. They also make you mouse too much- they'll screw up your wrist. What change do you mean? Dementia13 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section titled "References," which lists a half-dozen or so books? None of those are tied to any in-line citations, so they might as well not be listed for all the purpose they serve. They should be moved to "Further reading." My citation format follows MLA standards and is consistent with the other references here, except that it provides the kind of information that reviewers are going to look for if the article gets submitted for GAN. Dementia13 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No I was referring to the use of notes with the page numbers after them. Previously the page numbers were in the notes.

That works when each reference is used once, but when a reference is cited a number of times from several different pages, we have to used named references to shorten the repeated citations. These named references don't account for page numbers, so they have to be added afterwards. It's ugly, but it's what we're given. There's a way to get rid of those trailing page numbers, but it would mean changing every reference on the page to shortened footnotes. That's a much bigger format change than what you're talking about, it's a lot of typing, and it requires a lot of care to make sure that multiple citations of the same author are handled correctly. I've got two thick reference books to mine, and when those are done, I'll call the article complete and submit it for GAN and then peer review to see if FA status is feasible. That review process will likely have something further to say about the footnotes, so it'll get sorted out. Dementia13 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of systems that could be used to indicate different pages on repeat books, such as the short title system. My problem with this one is that I have never seen it in a scholarly publication.--SabreBD (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The trailing page numbers a web-specific system that Wikipedia provides. All of these separate occurrences are abbreviations that point back to the same citation, which is in the widely accepted MLA scholarly citation format. I'm using named refs just as the article already did, I'm just accounting now for page numbers. The existing refs did not do that, even in the cases where books were cited and page numbers should have been given. There were in fact very few refs that used an acceptable format, scholarly or otherwise, as most of them were just bare URLs. The article did not previously use the short title system, so that would also be a change in citation format. We can make a change if there's a consensus. Dementia13 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken to giving names to all references, even the ones that are used only once. That will help keep things sorted out if a change is made. Dementia13 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations

There was discussion above about the citation format. Standard citations using "ref" tags are good for citing web pages, but they don't account for the use of books and articles that require a page number in the citation. My workaround was to use a template that displays the page number after the footnote, which clutters up the page. There are two solutions to this, and either will require that the citations be reformatted. This requires a consensus among the page's regular editors. I haven't seen anybody other than SabreBD speak up here, so presumably agreement between the two of us constitutes a consensus, unless someone else has a say.

The choice is between short citations using "ref" tags or the "sfn" template. See WP:CITESHORT. I recommend the "sfn" format for the following reasons: 1) both auto-generate a list of notes at the bottom of the page, but "sfn" automatically links these to the full references while "Ref" tags require the extra step of doing that manually. 2) I've already done "List of progressive rock bands" using the "sfn" format, and I've learned the workarounds for quirks like when the author is anonymous or has written two pieces in the same year (these auto-links are based on the author's name and the year). The "ref" tags presumably also have these quirks, and learning them would require extra effort.

Please refer to the above-mentioned list page. I'm sure you'll agree that the results are pleasing. This would take extra work, but it's not necessarily as bad as it looks and can be done a little bit at a time. It would improve the article's readability. I've spoken up before about opposition to the use of template-formatted references, but these are not objectionable because the full citations are not inline with the text, and they can be done more ergonomically by use of a web form.

The only disadvantages I see are the extra work up front and the probability that later editors who are unfamiliar with the "sfn" format will mix formats by using the "ref" form they're already familiar with. This would mean cleaning up behind some of them, but the page is approaching a state of completeness to where there will be a lot less incentive for readers to do "drive-by" edits. Dementia13 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion with the GAN reviewer, I've started converting to the "sfn" format. For a few days, there will be a mix of reference styles. That's not ideal, but it won't be long. I wrote a PHP script to help generate citations, so if anyone needs that and has access to a *AMP stack, let me know. This system is slightly more work than the standard "ref" tags, so I'll put a little tutorial here afterward. Dementia13 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Progressive rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As a closet prog fan who has previously taken Van der Graaf Generator to GA, and currently working on improving it to FA, this is one of those articles that I personally would like to bend over backwards to do the GA review for. I can see you've done a lot of work on this recently, so hopefully this will be a reasonably straightforward exercise.

• Dablinks reports the article links to Prog (circular redirect) and New Prog
• Checlinks reports no issues.

• I can create free audio files for stereotypical prog instruments, though since my real Hammond has blown up, I sold my Moog, and I've only ever seen a Mellotron once at Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson's house once, they will be "faked" on modern equipment.

• I also prefer sfn over rp for citing books. It's not a requirement for GA but it's worth doing for something like Keith Moon or Phil Lynott that cites the same source in 20+ places. The easiest way to do this is to copy and paste the entire window into a decent text editor and run a search / replace script on it.

I'll have a read through the article over the weekend and get back to you! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the link to Prog. Could that be the link to the disambiguation page? New prog must be left behind from before that article was merged, but somebody changed it to point to the New Prog section on this page. Is that OK, or should it be de-linked? Dementia13 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

New prog was in the infobox - I've now removed it. This toolserver link still claims the article links to Prog, though I've looked through the entired rendered page source (thinking it might be picked up on a template transclusion) and can't find it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My preference for sound files is to include them in the context of a song. Keep in mind that part of my fair use rationale for certain files, such as "Starless" and "Eruption," is that they are demonstrations of instrument sounds. If those are made redundant, a pedant might request the removal of some of those files, which IMO are more instructive than images or even words. Dementia13 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through the article and I've started to make comments. Fundamentally the article more or less meets the GA criteria, much of the work having already been done through extensive talk page discussions and trips to the Guild of Copy Editors, so I anticipate passing this at some point when I've finished checking everything, and what I'm listing below is more FAC-lite than anything else.

Characteristics

• "Neither Greg Lake nor Boz Burrell had ever been a bassist prior to filling that role in King Crimson" is bending the truth a bit - both had played guitar, so the transition to bass was easier. A much better example, IMHO, is Roger Waters, who several sources (example here) have remarked was (and, presumably, still is) tone deaf, meaning Rick Wright had to tune his bass for him in concert. Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond is another example of a self-confessed lack of musical dexterity, and I can pull out a book source quote for that if you need it.

I'll revise that: The Greg Lake source did mention that he dabbled in bass with The Gods. "Easier transition" notwithstanding, those guys filled their role, but they couldn't have done the group improv or polyrhythmic stuff heard in later versions of Crimso. They were competent, but they weren't virtuosic. There's also a noticeable difference between Hammond-Hammond and the guys before and after him. I wonder if he really played on the studio albums? If that source is not too much trouble, I'd like to have it. I wanted to work him in, but I never got around to chasing down a source. Dementia13 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I will revise that, but I need to hunt down a source or two to do so correctly. Dementia13 (talk)

I've had a go, using a quote from the 20 Years of Jethro Tull box set, though like an idiot I've now put the box back in the cupboard without getting out the serial number, page number and author. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Musical aspects

• "long-form pieces of twenty minutes or more are not uncommon." - might be worth some examples, such as Echoes (Pink Floyd song), Tubular Bells, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Supper's Ready, The Gates of Delirium.

Some examples are given in later sections and are usually discussed in a little more detail. I hope to avoid examples with no explanation, because they invite every reader to clutter the article with their favorite. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• For Yes' use of classic music, it would be helpful to mention that Rick Wakeman was instrumental in making this happen. There was an old copy of Mojo (magazine) that mentioned a direct quote from Bill Bruford stating this was the case (don't have it anymore, sorry).

• I'd dispute Pink Floyd's close association with the Mellotron - it was only used in the studio, and doesn't appear on anything after Atom Heart Mother. A better example of notable 'tron band would be Wakeman-era Yes or Barclay James Harvest.

It's a sourced statement, sorry. Are you sure they never used it live? Atom Heart Mother is full of 'tron brass, and they did play that live. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was used live - most of the brass on AHM is real, and when performed live was done by real brass, or nothing at all. Still, a sourced comment is a sourced comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• This Sound on Sound source doesn't really state that Tony Banks used an RMI in place of a Hammond. He certainly used it in place of an acoustic piano live. Also worth a mention is the Hohner Pianet which Banks used at the start of the band's career to substitute piano and (via a stomp box), synth. Van der Graaf Generator and Argent (are they prog enough?) also used the Pianet.

I'll double-check that. There may be a reference mix-up: I definitely read something that named a specific passage in a specific song ("The Cinema Show"?) that featured organ arpeggios played on an RMI. Argent: I saw them mentioned frequently. Every author basically called them "almost" a prog band. "Precursors" would be the most likely place to mention them. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Double-check complete: The article definitely states that. It does so both in the body of the article and in an interview with Banks. Here's the relevant text:

If I had to pick the single most memorable aspect of the 368, it would have to be that remarkable organ mode. When I first heard albums such as Selling England By The Pound, and in particular The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (Genesis, 1973 and 1974 respectively) I was captivated by the organ on many of the tracks. I knew that Tony Banks was using a small Hammond but, try as I might, I couldn't get close to the delicate, phasey timbres he was producing. It wasn't until I saw him perform with a keyboard rig comprising just a Hammond, Mellotron, ARP Pro-Soloist, and an RMI that I realised that the sounds in question were emanating from his piano! This was many years before MIDI and there was no question of him playing one keyboard from another, so I had solved the mystery. The keyboard I craved was an RMI Electra-piano.

He used a Hammond, but he got additional organ sounds from the RMI. Dementia13 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I see where the confusion is. That isn't saying Banks used a RMI in place of a Hammond, just that he used an RMI alongside one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The reference to the Yamaha Electric Grand probably wants to mention its use came later in the 70s to the other keyboards.

I wonder if it's excessive detail to mention it at all? It was more of a road instrument. I didn't see much definitive indication that a band featured it in studio recordings. I have similar reservations about the Pianet: Do we have something on specific ways that it was used in prog, or on bands that made it a featured instrument? Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Banks is the most notable user (I have a interview in Nick Awde's "Mellotron" book where he describes using it as a lead instrument between the departure of Ant Phillips and the arrival of Steve Hackett), so I'd mention him if anyone. The Yamaha Electric Grand didn't appear until the late 1970s, so it kind of misses the classic "prog" period out.

• "Rick Wakeman appeared onstage surrounded by ten or more keyboards at a time" probably wants to be sourced. The "Sounding out" video from 1971 bootlegged all over YouTube has a Hammond, Mellotron, Fender Rhodes and Moog - just 4 (though to be fair this was his first tour with them). Off the top of my head, a typical Close to the Edge era rig would have been grand piano, RMI piano, Hammond, 2 mellotrons, 2 moogs - a total of 7.

It is sourced. I'll copy/paste the reference to make it clearer. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rats. It's not there. The number's legit, but I have to find where I got it from. Dementia13 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it was where I thought it was. It's good that you grabbed this article quickly- this source is a library book that I had to place on hold and wait for. It's due back in a few days, along with a couple of others, and it might not be easy to get a second time, so it's good that it's still here to refer to. Dementia13 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can the Sound on Sound source citing Pink Floyd's use of vocal delay have a link to the online version of the article.

It was there, but I edited it to show the title instead of just a number. Dementia13 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Progressive rock guitarists showed a distinct preference for Hiwatt amplifiers" probably wants examples. David Gilmour and Robert Fripp certainly used them, but Steve Howe preferred a Fender Combo amp (mind you, he's probably the exception to the rule).

He is the exception. You'd be surprised how many sources mentioned that everybody except Howe used Hiwatts. IMO, it's not the most relevant fact, but I thought that if it turned up that much, I'd better include it. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "This is often accompanied by .... a Chapman Stick" - I'm not sure "often" is correct here, aside from Tony Levin, who else is a notable user of one?

Trey Gunn and at least one other guy, I forget who. I'll look at the phrasing again. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Genesis singer Phil Collins .... performed in the London stage production of Oliver". Well yes, but so did the not-at-all-prog Steve Marriott. I'm not sure how this is relevant.

It's not to draw a connection from Broadway and prog, it's that the stage has a very high performance standard and cutthroat competition for those few roles. If he made it, he's frickin' good. I actually think that it's more relevant than bringing Steve Marriott into the discussion, because he certainly wasn't doing Otis Redding licks in Oliver! As for Sonja Kristina, several sources noted the theatrical influence in her Curved Air work. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, not disputing her! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding time signatures, I'm sure the BBC 4 programme Prog Rock Britannia has a quote from Bill Bruford saying he always wanted to experiment with standard pop song times, and put things in 5/4 - the video isn't working at the moment so I can't pull out a direct cite.

I'll check into it. I saw a great Rush quote about 7/4 before I was ready to use it, and I never could find it again. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The formatting for this keyboard magazine source, citing Keith Emerson's use of quartal harmony, doesn't seem to be formatted correctly.

I checked, but I don't get it. What specifically is the problem? Dementia13 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember now, I'll have to have another look :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure "Fracture" is built on free improvisation? Most of King Crimson's improvisations are credited to the whole band, where as this is credited only to Fripp.

It's sourced. I don't know why the discrepancy in the credit, IMO there's no doubt that it's an improv. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can you confirm Macan p. 73, 74 and 78 cites Van der Graaf's "Lemmings" as being about dystopia and the dehumanizing effects of society?

I'll double-check. There may be a couple of songs mixed together in that citation. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed: I had the wrong page number. Dementia13 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "21st Century Schizoid Man anticipates cyberpunk by several years" probably wants to be preceded by "In the opinion of author Bill Martin" as it's rather objective.

Rephrased. Dementia13 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Aspects

• I think "Genesis took a less spectacular approach" needs to be reworded - at the moment, it implies their approach to a live show wasn't as good as Pink Floyd's, as opposed to merely different.

Changed to "less extravagant." Is that acceptable, or do you want the word "less" removed as well? Dementia13 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that sounds fine to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Might it be worth mentioning that stage presentations were comprehensively satirised in This is Spinal Tap?

I think it's off-topic, because it's not prog-specific. Nothing substantial ever showed up in research. The Alan White seashell thing was in that movie, but Yes was not the only band to have an incident like that. Funny how, if you dig through the refs, ELP and Yes both try to take credit for being the real Spinal Tap. Dementia13 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

History

• This book source states "Without The Beatles, or someone else who had done what The Beatles did, it is fair to assume that there would have been no progressive rock." I think that quote, or one like it, is well worth putting in the article, as I think the Beatles were prog's primary influences over and above all others - after all, in 1967 they were still the biggest band in the world.

Added as block quote Dementia13 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

More later.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

... and carrying on from where we left off.

• As well as The Byrds, I'm pretty sure Yes' harmonies were also influenced by The Fifth Dimension - there's a snippet of an interview with Bruford (he seems to be the general spokesman of prog!) in the YesYears video saying this. (Sorry, I keep bringing up things I've thrown away or given to charity shops)

If I find it, I'll add it. I saw, then lost, an interview where one of them (Howe, I think) stated clearly that they were imitating The Byrds. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin, 1996, p.21 gives a laundry list of vocal harmony influences (also The Association and Simon and Garfunkel) and cites YesYears as his source. I'm afraid that level of detail is more appropriate for the Yes article than it is for a section that is intended to demonstrate what influences were important for the formation of prog. Dementia13 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's keep what we already have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• McCartney was just as much into the "swinging London" scene in 67 as Lennon (at this point, the latter, still in his pre-Yoko years, was married with a child and living in Weybridge). I'll dig out one of my Beatles books to source that.

I think I have a ref that places McCartney at the same event, a recent documentary called A Technicolor Dream. I'll verify. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Added something. Dementia13 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Procol Harum began to use a greater variety of acoustic instruments." Does this need a cite? I can't think of anything apart from some harpsichord on In Held Twas In I. Speaking of which, that BBC 4 programme cites that Procol track as a key influence on prog, one of the first side-long suites on an album.

That statement is from the citation that follows, which mentions it in relation to A Salty Dog. "In Held Twas In I" was formerly mentioned, but I removed the section because it was essentially a list. I've been looking for a way to reintroduce it in some way that doesn't duplicate material that already exists. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I copy/pasted the ref and specified A Salty Dog. I added "In Held 'Twas In I," but then I saw that it had been discussed in a previous section, so I undid my own edit. Dementia13 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would dispute that Chicago are prog. They did do experimental work ("Free Form guitar" is six minutes of excruciating guitar feedback) but most of their extended compositions are straight forward jamming. Soft Machine are (imho) a better example of integrating jazz instruments, particularly after the departure of Robert Wyatt and arrival of Karl Jenkins. And it might be well worth mentioning Van der Graaf's David Jackson and his simultaneous horn playing, also influenced by Roland Kirk.

They're not being represented as "prog", they're mentioned in "Precursors": That section shows how various influences came together to form prog. It's my failure if that's not clear, so I'll take a look and see what's wrong. Chicago, however, did piece songs together into side-long suites, such as the "Ballad for a Girl From Buchannon" on Chicago II. I was looking also to mention the Erik Satie pieces on the second BS&T album as a reaching out toward classical, but apparently nobody writes about that anymore. That particular paragraph is to show how jazz influences were brought into rock. VdGG weren't a major influence on the genre's formative years, so David Jackson would be off-topic in that section. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I reordered the paragraph in an attempt to add specificity and make it clearer that we're still not yet talking about full-fledged prog. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• In terms of lack of female interest in prog, it's certainly true the audience was mostly male, but there was a related category of Progressive folk, such as The Incredible String Band and Pentangle, who contained female members. An even more notable (imho) example of female-led prog were Shirley and Dolly Collins, who released albums on Harvest Records and contained a side-long suite on one of their albums - both stereotypical prog characteristics. The music, being a collection of experimental folk with traditional English instruments, is quite outside the typical pop fare of the time.

I kind of hate that sentence: It's a legacy from before I worked on the article, but numerous references do support it and the BBC documentary discusses it at some length. The Hegarty/Halliwell reference goes into some depth about progressive folk's more prominent female representation. I'll look for a way to work that in, as IMO the folk influence is underrepresented here. I've addressed that a little in the past week. Renaissance and Curved Air are repeatedly named as two of prog's most prominent bands, so evidence tends to dispute the Collinses' "greater notability". I'll see if the H&H has anything relevant on them. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanded that paragraph and added the Collinses to "Precursors". Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Europe, worth mentioning that at one point, Van der Graaf Generator were almost as big as The Beatles in Italy during the early 70s.

That's a good point. I'd like a ref. I'll add Genesis with that, as I have a good ref on that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I added something about VdGG's popularity, but I didn't compare it to that of the Beatles, because the previous sentence stated that Italy previously had no interest in rock. Saying that VdGG were as popular as someone the Italians didn't care about makes a very weak point. Dementia13 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was more a figure of speech rather than a literal comparison to The Beatles - you were right not to mention that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Foreigner included King Crimson founder member Ian McDonald?

That's why I list them as tied to progressive rock, but stopping to mention each band's specific connection kills readability. It's a fascinating detail but, objectively, not essential. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Pink Floyd were unable to repeat that success" is rather POV. From a purely commercial perspective, the post Waters Floyd was certainly successful.

Ouch. That sentence is a placeholder that I never finished. I'll get on that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See if it's better now. Dementia13 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding OK Computer, I don't recall music downloads being particularly popular in 1997 - it was only around 2002/2003 that they started to overtake CDs.

Illegal downloads were an issue earlier. IIRC, Napster had already been prosecuted and shut down by 2001. The reference states a connection between downloads and a change in perception of the album as a unit, but it doesn't give a timeline for this and doesn't say at what point the pendulum swung back. It took until the middle of the next decade for bands like Coheed and Cambria and The Mars Volta to appear. I'll double-check the clarity. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Did Tool not tour with King Crimson at some point?

I can work that in. Existing references mention that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Added. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Festivals

• "King Crimson made their first major appearance at the 1969 Hyde Park free concert, before a crowd of 650,000." Stones in the Park, on the other hand, cites four sources to give an estimate between 250-000 and 500,000.

Who are you going to believe: Robert Fripp or four journalists? I'll rephrase. Dementia13 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased to specify that the figure was an estimate. Dementia13 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is CalProg particularly notable?

That's another legacy section of which I'm not fond. It's essentially a list, and I'd just as soon it were spun off into a page of its own. I'll delete CalProg if I can't find anything on it. Dementia13 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I found: 1.) Notability is for article subjects, not article content per WP:NNC. 2.) A quick search of "CalProg" on HighBeam turns up three articles, all of which I have used in List of progressive rock bands. That's not huge coverage, and each of those articles is about a band and not the festival, but that satisfies the notability guidelines to which it's not held anyway. Kept, but trimmed. Dementia13 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• ELP were infamously slated by John Peel as "a waste of talent and electricity" (source here)

Lester Bangs had better: He called them something like "war criminals." Dementia13 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Added Dementia13 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's the article swept. Next thing I need to do is check the sources and the media links, and reply to comments above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References

A lot (if not, indeed, most) references are all free text. This won't stop a GA passing (all you need is the cite to be inline, and linked to a reference section which describes the source in enough detail to verify it), but I'd recommend using the {{cite}} template and friends if you can, ideally using {{sfn}} for the book references. Let me know if you need a hand with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't use citation templates inline- and if you want to know why, join the WP:GOCE and copy edit some articles that are done that way, there really needed to have been some kind of color code to separate the citations from the text- but they're excellent for a reference section in combination with inline {{sfn}}s. I'll make everything {{sfn}}: that works fine for any type of source. I'm not sure what you mean by "free text," but I'm agreeable to converting the references. It should take a little while, though, as I'm about to have a lot less time available. The page may be in transition for a few days. Dementia13 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've been busy getting my own articles up to GA over the last day or two :-/ ... but anyway, I'm putting this on hold for the minute. I'll then run through everything again and we should be up for a pass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've gone over the article again and gone through it. There was one uncited chart position in the "New prog" section, which I've cited. Neo prog looks okay, I questioned Saga (band)'s suitability as being popular but it seems they had a few top five hits in Germany, so that's okay. Marillion were, in their early career, compared to Genesis (Grendel being the prime suspect in question) no matter how much they dislike it or how un-Genesis they've sounded ever since Misplaced Childhood.

As for the audio samples, there's a lot of them, but they've all got valid NFCC tags on them, as have all the images, so they fulfill the GA criteria. I think this, plus the reference formatting, is what needs the most work, and if you want to work on the article some more, this is where I'd focus your energy on.

Having said all of that, the article is a comprehensive and perfectly readable introduction to this genre of music, given an balanced account of its ups and downs, properly cited inline to sources, using media per guidelines, and stable, so I'm happy to give this a Pass as it meets the GA criteria. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort and input. What specifically needs work with the samples, the fact that there are many? Punk rock also has a lot, and it's a FA, and its subject is much less diverse than progressive rock. If I were asked to remove one, I'd ask, "Which two sound alike?" There are many distinct points to demonstrate.

Since you're the second to mention Saga, it's apparently a regional thing. The reference cited is an interview in which the guitarist mentions that when their album sales dropped to 500,000, the record label saw them as declining, but a modern album can be considered a hit with much lower sales yet. Maybe they weren't big in the UK, but they were huge in North America (they were Canadian), had several gold and platinum albums, and had a big presence in MTV's early years. IIRC, Hegarty & Halliwell was the reference that discussed them in connection with neo-prog. Dementia13 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Prog & Twelfth Night

(Discussion on the reversion of an unreferenced statement on Twelfth Night, moved from editor talk pages):

I'm not going to take your word for it that Twelfth Night were especially important, so if they were, please provide a reliable reference explaining why. This article quickly becomes cluttered with lists of names. This might be a nice shout-out for the band's fans, but think of the reader, who might have no prior knowledge of progressive rock. Does the mere presence of a name increase this reader's understanding?

I'm trying not to mention any band's name anywhere in the article without it being tied to some relevant point in the discussion of the subject. That's harder with neo-prog, because these bands just don't show up in published references. There's not much information on them outside of fanzines and fan sites. Beyond Marillion, and to a lesser extent Pallas and Saga, discussion is pretty much limited to "yeah, they also exist." I'm not seeing any later bands that claim them as influences. This all suggests that neo-prog as a whole isn't that essential. If you have some substantial information from a reliable source that specifies Twelfth Night's importance, then put it up there. But if there's going to be constant dispute over whose names get listed, I'll delete the whole section. It won't hurt the article, and neo-prog has its own article anyway. Dementia13 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My main angle is being an "eye witness" in the early 80's and seeing a lot of those bands on a regular basis. Twelfth Night were one of the more innovative of the neo-progs (as they now seem to be termed) with more of a harsh edge (reflecting the realities of a country in decline and influence of harsher punk & NWOBHM music) and with some very experimental segments, along with rockier parts, and not just reproducing that early Genesis sound that most of the others seemed to aspire to. Other bands were on the scene, but Solstice were not around much and I'm afraid I'd not heard of Saga until reading this article.

It is difficult to find supporting evidence, as the music papers of the time don't seem to be online and I won't be trying to find physical copies!

A few fleeting references I've found online:

Rocking the Classics: Edward Macan

References to the Marquee Club playing a seminal role for prog, and whilst referencing a number of the bands, it states "Twelfth Night was something of an unofficial house band in the 80s"

Not sure if you are willing to accept other websites as valid sources:

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=339

"The "MANN-era" music will live on in prog as being something particularly special, as it goes several steps further than even FISH-era MARILLION, with whom the band are often (mistakenly) compared"

http://www.trebuchet-magazine.com/twelfth-night-live-and-let-live/

"Back in the early 1980s, The Reading-based band Twelfth Night were one of the leading lights of the so-called “Neo-prog” movement: the second wave of prog-rock bands who combined the complexity and ambition of progressive rock with the DIY ethos of punk."

By the way, the Marillion music clip attached to this article is not a good representation of the style. Marillion became a lot more mainstream after the departure of Fish, so to provide a useful reference, you really need something from the Fish era.....

The purpose of the article is not to be comprehensive: It has to give an overview of the main points. Lists of examples just don't make this a better article, so I've removed that list completely. There's no dispute whether or not they were a "good" band, the issue is whether they did something that impacted the genre in the bigger picture, or whether they did something that serves as a good example of an article point. The references I'm finding pretty much say that they had trouble staying together because they had a hard time getting a recording contract and generating income. Not good evidence of impact. I saw the Macan quote, and it still boils down to "Yay, they existed!" Yes, the Marquee Club was important...fifteen to twenty years earlier. That's information for the Twelfth Night article, not for the main article. Reading this article, can you guess my favorite prog band? You won't, because I took care not to give undue weight.

As to accepting other websites as sources, I'm going to point you back to the link that I took the trouble to format for you in the earlier message: reliable. That gives detail about what is and isn't acceptable. Because anybody can write anything they want on the internet, the only way to make a reliable article is to use published sources that have some kind of editor who makes sure that the content is accurate. That's why wikis, forums and blogs are not reliable. Neither is progarchives.com, which essentially is a wiki. Trebuchet Magazine is a great source, but I didn't find anything in that article that I could use.

As for the audio example, I'm sorry, but that's all I have. The Macan that you mentioned has a statement that many of those bands' potential fans had never even heard of them: I've been listening to prog since the 1970s, and I first heard of TN, IQ, Solstice and Pallas two months ago, when I started work on this article. That particular clip was chosen with the idea of including a Genesis clip to display the similarities. If the GAN reviewer gives the go-ahead, I'm going to do that. If not, then I'm open to using something different. If you have something suitable, then post an .ogg or send me a .wav and I'll format it. I'm looking for a section of no more than 10% of a song's length (that's why I've chosen examples from long tracks) that demonstrates multiple article points. The most important thing, more important than whether it is a personal favorite, is whether it is relevant to the article. Dementia13 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also throw into the mix that the Steve Hogarth fronted Marillion have made great pains to stress they are just a modern rock band, with several top ten hits under their belt and a strong grassroots following, and distance themselves strongly from any sort of "progressive" tag. Therefore, a sample of them now would be out of place on a Prog article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree: Their disavowal of the label doesn't mean they're not part of the genre. Several of the "new prog" bands have made similar statements but show distinct and defining progressive rock traits. King Crimson have distanced themselves from the "prog" label since 1974, but they're still considered one of the genre's first names. Motorhead and Saxon claim that they're not metal bands, but nobody else sees it that way, and Saxon didn't have any problem identifying with that genre when it was at peak popularity. All that means is that the artist dislikes the expectations that come along with the label. Dementia13 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)