Talk:Timeline of progressive rock

DETAILS OR NO DETAILS? In February 2010, per the open tasks list on the Progressive Rock Project page, I moved all detail from this article to separate articles for each decade. It remained that way for 5.5 years. In Aug. 2015, someone started adding "Newly Formed Bands" for each decade. Now, I am revisiting this page and find this to be confusing. It is duplicate information that can be found in each detailed article. It also implies that this article is all there is (distracts the reader from the fact that they can click into detailed articles for each decade). For today, I added some clarification text to this page so that it is more obvious to the reader that there are detailed articles available. I would like to hear what others think about this page? Should it basically just be a top-level menu to get readers into the detailed articles with no detail? Or should it maintain the current level of detail (listing newly formed bands) as well as linking to the detailed articles? Nickelarcade (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction This page should be used as a companion to the progressive rock page on Wikipedia. I thought it would be nice for people to be able to get a glimpse of how the genre has continued to develop from its inception to present times. This will be a timeline outlining those events.

PLEASE try to confine the entries to important and notable developments in the genre. Try to resist the inclination to list your own favorite band unless you feel it's made a relevent or important contribution to the genre, or is widely regarded as a classic. KEEP THIS PAGE AGENDA FREE!


 * Note this page is no longer restricted to events since 2001. Bondegezou 12:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add any band with a reliable source claiming it is Progressive Rock. Ideally, everything should be here. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Edited opening statement.--Flonkus 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Youth
Would the addition of Sonic Youth's Daydream Nation be considered unacceptable? I was just wondering, due to the inclusion of Radiohead? Possibly Moon Safari by Air? Makrugaik

S:::onic Youth? Great band, Daydream Nation is a great album but I don't think they could be considered progressive rock unless you stretch the definition to the breaking point. Moon Safari, with its sonic ties to Pink Floyd would be OK, IMO.


 * Also, Can has Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi but not Future Days?!?! I really think that great album should be added.(Sorry, don't know how to add my user name, this is my first time in joining an editing discussion).


 * I feel that, while most Sonic Youth fans believe that Daydream Nation is a highpoint in their career, it might not be the best example of their progressive rock traits. They began as a band out of the punk and no wave scenes, the latter seeming to come from a fairly progressive background.  Also, when listening to earlier albums like Bad Moon Rising or Evol, there is definitely much more of a progressive feel, especially in comparison to an album like Dirty.  Sonic Youth definitely strikes me as a grey area band, but not any more than Radiohead (Pablo Honey and The Bends don't strike me as progressive rock at all).


 * Also, where are the 13th Floor Elevators in all of this? Their first album predates Sgt Pepper, which would even discredit Portnoy (see below in The Beatles/The Who secion).


 * Oh, and just to kick the dirt up a bit more, there are tons of more underground bands that have came out of the same scene as bands other bands listed (Mastodon, Coheed & Cambria, etc) that are considered "mathrock" or "mathcore" (the terms alone reek of prog rock). Some of these bands are heavier and can almost be called "prog metal", some of them more in the "indie rock" world. Examples: Botch, Converge, Lightning Bolt, Don Caballero, Off Minor, Daughters, Sweep The Leg Johnny, Circle Takes The Square, etc (all bands listed have wikipedia pages).  Even later era Black Flag (The Process Of Weeding Out EP, a perfect example) falls into this category, as they were trying to shock, even alienate punk crowds with much longer songs and extreme time changes.  Could these bands potentially count?  Sonikmatsuri (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Add anything that you can consider prog rock. This includes experimental prog, math rock, art rock, and symphonic rock. If you have sources, better. We'll be cleaning the list up pretty soon. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada
Quidam is linked to the wrong Quidam namely the happening from Cirque du Soleil in stead of the Polish band see Qqq1 11:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (from the Netherlands) I think this has been fixed. The link now references "Quidam (band)" which still needs to be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btrhoads (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Under 1975 Albums, Harmonium's Si On Avait Besoin d'Une Cinquième Saison should read it's from Canada, not Quebec, I'd say. Both ways are technically accurate, but the former would fit better with the spirit of the rest of the page. (12:56 EST, April 15 2007)

Hmm! Upon further observation, Harmonium was just the first of a long list. There are about a dozen of Quebec bands which should see their country of origin switched to Canada, or at least so I think. (13:11 EST, April 15 2007)

When going through the timeline I switched all Quebec bands to Canada bands.--Cdl obelix (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Progessive Metal, Yes or No?
I see we have some progressive metal bands on the list, notably Dream Theater. If they are going to be on this list then I believe all Prog Metal bands should be as well. If that cannot be agreed then I nominate that Dream Theater be removed from the list except for their one album which was true Prog Rock.
 * You can add progressive metal dont worry. You can add bands and albums of artists of all progresive rock genres and sub-genres. M.V.E.i. 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Beatles and Who
Added the Beatles for their early experimentation and The Who for their rock opera works to the "1962 - 1967 newly formed bands" section. Don't remove. It's kind of silly to have a chapter titled "1962 - 1967" where the first entry is from 1964. It's also silly to remove the Beatles and The Who when their albums are listed in the ensuing years.74.77.208.52 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - Ok, Portnoy says in the Budokahn that Sgt peepers is the first progressive album

I'm not going to remove either The Beatles and The Who. Yet, both seem like "Classic Rock" rather than "Progressive Rock". I would imagine that you would consider Sgt. Peppers an example of prog rock. Ok fine, but The Rolling Stones Beggars Banquet is considered a concept album too, b/c all of the songs relate to a poor or downtrodden theme. (By comparison, not all of the Sgt Peppers songs relates to the band discussed at the start of the album). But if you say Rolling Stones ARE NOT prog rock, I would say, "Yes, you're right. & I also don't believe that Who or Beatles are either." All 3 are Classic Rock bands. V Schauf (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Progressive Rock and Classic Rock don't have to be completely disconnected genres. Prog started a specific type of Psychedelic and "Classic" Rock before eventually splitting off to become it's own thing. Those early stages can still fall under the "Prog Rock" label, even while they also fall under "Classic Rock RSCorundum (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes on the timeline
Would it be useful to have short notes on the timeline? For example, for the first section, there could be a note that The Beatles were very influential on the genre (but are not generally considered a prog band) or on why acts like the Daevid Allen Trio and Uriel are historically significant despite being short-lived? If no-one objects, I'll start doing some. Bondegezou 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel and Genesis
It says that in 1974 Peter gabriel left genesis, then it says, with much more information, that in 1975 peter gabriel left genesis. Which is correct? Ashe613 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1975 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.187.21 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Prog?
Not to be a whinger, but there are several artists listed in this article that would not be widely regarded as progressive rock. What exactly are the criteria for being included in this article? 41.245.131.170 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Progressive rock, read the opening paragraph and the "CHARACTERISTICS", that basically answers your question. V Schauf (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prog? Addendum
Agreed. Mastodon is NOT progresive rock, nor is a lot of other dull-minded "modern" heavy metal. I am afraid that people have taken the surface elements and stereotypical attributes of a complex of musics who have had the apellation "Progressive Rock" heaped upon them by the press, and attempted to insinuate themselves into "canon" sans spirit of the original. I quote from Steve Hackett:

What do you think about the revival of the Progressive Rock with the new generation of groups like RIVERSIDE or PORCUPINE TREE ?

S.H.: I enjoy PORCUPINE TREE but I’m unfamiliar with RIVERSIDE. I prefer if people are not described as Progressive because it turns off so many people but I understand the reason for labels. The more styles you embrace the more you’re considered Progressive. The upside is the inspired experimentation and uplifting sounds, whilst the downside can be too much punctuation but not enough statement. (Italics added)

Robert Fripp also attempts to stay away from the Progressive Rock labeling due to the negative associations it often has, and people's obsessiveness about things past, ignoring the current projects that artists are working on.

I blame in part the Progressive Rock Archives website - a great resource, but a silly categorizing of bands into sub-sub-sub categories. Perhaps it is human to want to categorize, but here it does music that yearns to be free to have it's own identity a disservice, and overated and obnoxious metal bands like Mastodon do early Progressive Rock a disservice by attempting to pass itself off as part of the evolving "progress" of music or even it's end product.

To further clarify: Progressive is a mixture of stylistic cross-pollenization, much like what DJ's attempt to do with "mixing", but at a root composition level. To create new life forms from the additive qualities of others. Math-rock IS Math-rock. Much of Math-rock has no consideration for musical qualities but is based on the mathematical formulae alone. Even so, it is what IT IS, and should be considered alone, unless utilized in the context of a "progressive" mixture.

The main other thing that is commonly ignored, is the DEEPER CONCERNS of progressive musics. Genesis' "Supper's Ready" is NOT just a silly story full of pretty images. Yes' "Close to the Edge" evokes concepts from Herman Hesse's Sidartha. Gong's mythology is a syncretic mix of mysticism in an attempt to creat transformation. The goals of the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway and Robert Fripp's Guitar Craft are also transformative.

Music with no DEEPER CONCERNS than merely how the notes are put together have no part in "progressive canon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.242.234 (talk • contribs) 04:18 24 September 2009


 * Unfortunately deciding which music has deeper concerns or not is a subjective opinion. I define progressive rock as rock that progresses beyond the standard 4/4 four-stanza verse-chorus-bridge pop-rock. Metre changes, key changes, polyrhythmics, etc are all staples of Progressive rock. Math rock is also very much prog. King Crimson is math rock (See Frame by Frame, Level Five, etc). However, opinions are irrelevant as we are just anonymous internet users. The sources are what matter, and until we are qualified to write and publish a book about progressive rock, we are not the sources. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If your crteria is true, then everything from Alice in Chains to Britanny Spears is progressive. Metre changes are NOT exclusive to progressive music. If you would like sources from Kevin Holmes Hudson and Andrew Keeling, who are both Ph.ds who have worked with "progressive" artists, then the main criteria is the Gestamkunstwerk, or "wholeness" of a work. This is absent from many "modern prog metal" works. I can cite a million examples of the "progressive" artists themselves defining "progressive" not as a mere point of structural analysis, but as an actual fusion of styles. The King Crimson songs you mention are great examples of where people have Lost the Point - they are mathematical, but with a melodic and harmonic sense brought forth from musical experience and not mere adherence to formulae. Please let me know if you would like me to list out sources for a criteria of what "progressive" means. A lot of it is time considered and can only be understood within the context of a period. This is like saying I can focus on a band that considers only John Lennon's fuzz-guitar and call it Nu-Beatles style. Ridiculous. Have the guts to be your own thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.242.234 (talk • contribs) 00:38 25 September 2009


 * Obviously you missed the point. I was saying that it was a combination of many things and that those are examples of some of the elements that make it up. Please list your sources, as that is what is important in the end.


 * Perhaps Discipline would be a better King Crimson example of purely mathematical rock. Progressive music is music that progresses beyond the radio-friendly-unit-shifters of rock and pop. Alice in Chains and Britney Spears are very much your standard 4/4 four-stanza verse-chorus-bridge music, and that is what defined both Grunge and pop music is the simplicity of the music. Pop music is built around 4/4 as that is a consistent beat. Metre changes are not exclusive to progressive rock, nor do they necessarily make something progressive rock. However, 9 times out of 10, if you are listening to a song that is in 5/8 and it switches to 7/16, you are listening to progressive music.

Order of the timeline
The order should be by date that first album is released. Not formation date. I would even suggest that the order should be by first Progressive Rock album. For instance, the first album for Genesis is 1968's From Genesis To Revelation which is not a Progressive Rock album. The should be listed as starting their Progressive Rock era with 1970's Trespass. This would give the reader a better Timeline to understand the development of Progressive Rock. Firstlensman (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)