I vote for Yes, marginally over Jethro Tull. Wow, Hawkwind! I saw them live a few months ago at an old church, it was one of the best gigs I've been to! They go by the name Space Ritual now, with Nik Turner leading. They're minus a few original members of course, but it still was amazing!
Toto is more your standard 80s soft-rock with some arena elements thrown in to sell records.. there may be some slight prog touches, but in a lame Asia-esque sorta way. You know, the sorta quasi-prog stadium rock that punk created itself to rebel against.
I don't really like the Genesis type of prog, I always felt Genesis was too soft, sort of a square band. Yes has much nicer melodies and they are heavier and the singer has a much nicer voice.
have you ever listened to the peter gabriel-lead genesis??? there is more to genesis than what you reguarly hear on the radio with phil collins on vocals... plus alot of that phil collins stuff isnt that bad.....
are you kidding me?? seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. progressive isnt a term to be loosely thrown around in the music world.
Yes Jethro Tull Kansas Floyd Emerson, Lake and Palmer "Carry on now wayrawd son, they'll be peace when you are done" "All in all it's just another brick in the wall".
yah, geez, if i were to think of led zepp being progressive, i would only say that rain song, stairway, over the hills, and MAYBE kashmir, only had a HINT of progressiveness to them, and thats It!
I voted for Yes, because I believe that they're the most technically gifted band out of all bands. But my Top 5 Prog-Band List would be something like this... 5. Emerson Lake & Palmer 4. Jethro Tull 3. King Crimson 2. Genesis 1. Yes Oh yeah, and Pink Floyd is not Progressive Rock, and how dare anybody consider them that.
Let's look at the differences between Pink Floyd and every other Progressive Rock Band ever. Progressive Rock is Heavily based in Folk, Classical, and Jazz. They express these influences very clearly. Pink Floyd is based in Folk, Blues, Pop, & Jazz. They also express these influnces very clearly in their early pre-DSOTM work. Progressive Rock is very virtuosic. Musicians usually showed off their skills some way or another. Pink Floyd are not virtuoso's at their instruments. They never really showed off. Most Progressive Rock bands don't jam very often. Their songs usually involve complex passages before, inbetween, or after lyrical sections. Pink Floyd did a lot of jamming in their early days. There weren't any passages that were very complex. The only real similarities between Prog-Rock and Pink Floyd are the little nuances in their music and the 20 minute+ songs. But however most Prog Bands had 20 minutes+ of ever changing complex music, whereas Pink Floyd (with the exception of Atom Heart Mother) usually just had jams or improvs to fill out songs (ie. Echoes and Shine On You Crazy Diamond). So that is why I don't consider Pink Floyd prog-rock. They may lean towards Progressive at certain times, but they are definitely not prog.
the closest that pink floyd ever got to progressive rock was 1977's animals album...... I would not automatically label them as that because of one album. all their other so-called concept albums were hardly that, they were loosely based..... and one was more like a rock opera than a progressive rock/concept album.