> On Apr 5, 8:46�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

>>
>> news:392178ce-6c90-4cd0-b26f-151a4114ee48@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>

>>> 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 -