On Apr 5, 8:46Â pm, "Jyph" wrote:
> All the groups that you parenthesized (if they are prog) could be classified
> as "prog" groups - I don't see why not - it's not a cut 'n dried definition.
> Practically any music could have certain elements of prog, with the
> exception maybe of country 'n western, basic blues, or Jerry Lee Lewis
Clearly, all music can be consider progressive except for that of
Jerry Lewis. Opps,
Jerry Lee Lewis, hmmm...he was ahead of his time with the feet playing
the piano thing,
whole lotta shaking...that is pretty darn progressive if you ask me
young fella!
.....
> It would be tricky to come up with an actual definition for what constitutes
> prog or not -
so instead, let's define it as "all music is progressive."
> it would probably be a fairly complex definition - strong
> elements of the classics married with jazz improvisation (within tight
> parameters )
Wait, I thought the definition would be fairly complex. Where does
Jerry Lee Lewis
fit in to this?
Raja"
gmail.com> wrote in message>> After having heard all their albums from the late 60s and 70s, this is
>> my conclusion.
>
>> 01. Yes
>> 02. Pink Floyd (if they are prog)
>> 03. Van der Graaf Generator (if they are prog)
>> 04. King Crimson
>> 05. Kraftwerk (if they are prog)
>> 06. Can
>> 07. Moody Blues (if they are prog)
>> 08. Beatles (if they are prog)
>> 09. Jethro Tull
>> 10. Rush
>
>> Sorry, but I never got the hype with Genesis, ELP, Gentle Giant, Dream
>> Theater, Kansas, Styx etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
