Originally Posted by Foxhound
Certainly seems that way, but keep in mind that I don't/can't speak for them.
Ahhhh, but the real dividing line between an inclusive definition of prog and an exclusive definition of prog is whether you would include these bands that originated in the 1960's within the prog genre:
John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers
Ten Years After
Jeff Beck Group
Quicksilver Messenger Service
Spencer Davis Group
(Peter Green's) Fleetwood Mac
Jimi Hendrix Experience
Butterfield Blues Band
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Big Brother & the Holding Company
Include them and your using the inclusive progressive rock definition. Exclude them and you subscribe to a narrow definition of prog.
Hepcat's thread would indeed be a viable candidate for the honour. But there have been dozens of threads dealing with progressive rock/prog over the years:
Whatever thread within you choose to post about prog can now de facto
become the "official" prog thread including this one right here!
Thanks for the thread links but if anyone wants to this can also be the 'de facto' prog thread.
Regarding your list above......some of those are not what I consider prog bands , some are proto prog and some could be prog...imho.
There are no hard and fast rules though and it becomes a matter of opinion...which is always said at PA. I own something by every band on your list and a few bands there I have all of their studio work and much of the live also.
Inclusive...exclusive...narrow definitions...sounds like semantics to me....an area I know well being an over educated old timer. Saying Lovin' Spoonful is prog compared to say Yes is like saying Johnny Cash is R & B compared to Aretha Franklin.
But...I will say that many rock bands have at various times snuck some progressive moves into their music, but not that much.