Why no 'USA' Prog bands made the big 5?

Hmmm, maybe because some people enjoy Kansas and Styx more than the bands you listed? This isn't rocket science, just subjective personal preferences.

I guess because their album and concert ticket sales numbers were bigger than other contemporary progressive rock bands. Pink Floyd often gets omitted from the list as there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether they were "prog" -a fine point I couldn't give a toss about myself. I could easily argue that Gentle Giant was more progressive than Tull and more influential on later prog bands, but they never approached Tull's popularity. I don't find much point or need to make these kind of lists myself, just giving my opinion on the matter.

 

Yeah, that was a rather ironic statement coming from the guy who seems to view The Charts as the unquestionable arbiter of success.

 

Yeah some bands from both sides of the ocean have been added to the genre retroactively. For example, Pink Floyd weren't in "top 5" before Internet, as people on the internet sites added PF to "progressive rock" genre in the '90s. Back in the day, PF were considered as a (great) Psychedelic rock band only, as insisting on odd time signatures was one of a few general rules for "prog" as well, unlike PF who never recorded a song with the odd time signatures except Money.

 

For those who are not familiar with Kansas beyond their radio hits, I suggest this well compiled and mastered 2 disk set:

The Kansas Box Set
Disc one

1. "Can I Tell You" (Rich Williams, Phil Ehart, Dave Hope, Steve Walsh) – 4:20 (1973 demo)
2. "Death of Mother Nature Suite" (live) – 9:00
3. "Journey from Mariabronn" (Livgren, Walsh) – 7:57
4. "Song for America" – 10:02
5. "The Devil Game" (Hope, Walsh) – 5:04
6. "Incomudro - Hymn to the Atman" (live) – 16:08
7. "Child of Innocence" – 4:33
8. "Icarus - Borne on Wings of Steel" – 6:04
9. "Mysteries and Mayhem" (Livgren, Walsh) – 4:20
10. "The Pinnacle" – 9:36

Disc two

1. "Carry On Wayward Son" – 5:22
2. "The Wall" (Livgren, Walsh) – 4:47
3. "What's on My Mind" – 3:27
4. "Opus Insert" – 4:25
5. "Magnum Opus" (Livgren, Walsh, Ehart, Williams, Hope, Robby Steinhardt) – 8:25
6. "Point of Know Return" (Ehart, Steinhardt, Walsh) – 3:12
7. "Portrait (He Knew)" (Livgren, Walsh) – 4:34
8. "Dust in the Wind" – 3:29
9. "Closet Chronicles" (Livgren, Walsh) – 6:31
10. "People of the South Wind" – 3:39
11. "On the Other Side" (live) – 6:43
12. "A Glimpse of Home" – 6:36
13. "Relentless" – 4:57
14. "Loner" (Walsh) – 2:30
15. "Hold On" – 3:53
16. "Wheels" (Livgren, Walsh) – 4:32 (new track)

As is usual with these collections it omits a few key tracks (Miracles Out Of Nowhere, The Spider, Belexes), but they did a good job selecting the best tracks for a two disk comp.

 

Not to mention the artists he cites are either jazz fusion or straight forward rock. In other words, not prog. Oh dear, here I go down that rabbit hole.

 

I guess that a lot of people are concluding that fusion was like the American analog to prog, which I can sort of see, particularly if we're talking about the Canterbury scene where bands like Soft Machine, National Health and even Gong basically crossed over to fusion territory in the 70s. But when it comes to the more symphonic stuff, Kansas was about as close as American bands got to hitting paydirt.

 

With all due respect to The Nice, The Moody Blues, Procul Harum, The Mothers, et al., all the pre-existing elements of "prog" fell into place and solidified on King Crimson's first album. King Crimson (arguably) invented prog. Genesis and Yes were directly influenced by In The Court of the Crimson King.

To sever Crimson from the body of prog is to behead that body. King Crimson belongs more than anyone else.

 

King Crimson was certainly the least commercially successful of "the big 5" and it's easy to understand why: They were often the least accessible and most uncompromising of the group, but they were also arguably the most influential trailblazers.

 

That's a fair point. I guess I always associate fusion as springing forth from late 60s Miles Davis. In all honesty, I've always been on the fence about 70s fusion. If I'm in the right mood, it hits a certain sweet spot. But at other times, jazz fusion does for me what a lot of prog metal does: the musicianship wows me but the songs don't give me much emotional impact. Even some of the Canterbury bands leave me a little cold. I suppose I've lost any (prog) credibility I might have had with that statement!

 

I know what you mean sometimes. I really enjoy the early output from bands like Gong and Soft Machine where they exhibited more of a freewheeling psychedelic sound, but as time went along, they seemed to get more cold and technical (Also from the Canterbury scene, I'd say that Hatfield & the North did a good job of keeping their fusion excursions appealing and fun.). Though I respect them, I feel similarly about Mahavishnu Orchestra. Still, I think it's important to remember how important the jazz influence was with a lot of prog, whereas a lot of spectators seem to think of the symphonic influence first and foremost.

 

at the end of the day (for me) there are bands/artists i like and bands/artists i don't like and they cover so many different genres that genres become redundant. it's all about a song or piece of music that reaches you in some way and/or a band/artist that consistently does that.
i've heard guys say that they only listen to prog, which in itself is not very progressive and bemuses me.

 

Gentle Giant & King Crimson were the risk takers not as commercially successful as others but way ahead of most in the genre.

 

Musically, Crimson definitely forged their own territory, but it'd be naive to think that Mahavishnu Orchestra (fusion!) had no impact on Larks era KC. That said, socially Crimson had several direct connections with Yes, ELP and Genesis. That why this American component is really a non-starter. The movement, as we know it, was English-based. Acts from each countries were influenced by it and adapted elements.

 

You are on point here, but I would like to refine your argument a bit.

I would say that King Crimson did not invent prog, but their first album provided an aesthetic template for the future successes of the actual Big 3: YES (Heart of the Sunrise), Genesis (Firth of Fifth) and ELP (Take a Pebble).

When most cognoscenti think of Prog, they refer the sound of In The Court of the Crimson King, that would get successfully adopted by any other major "symphonic prog" band of the 70s. Nice, Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Mothers, Soft Machine, Pink Floyd, Colosseum and even YES themselves had all tried it before, but none managed to elaborate the winning Prog Formula of the next decade.

The irony is that King Crimson would not stick to what they worked out on their first album and most of their subsequent repertoire, a few ballads aside, had little to do with the sound of Prog, moving more decidedly towards jazz/fusion/avant/improv territories instead. That is why for quite a few prog fans King Crimson are only a honorary member of the Big Whatever, while the very essence of the genre is represented by YES, Genesis and ELP.

 

^^^This nails it!

 

Weather Report -Jazz fusion.
Mahavishnu Orchestra /Yes light UTOPIA fits the bill I guess. Also ..Zappa, circa 1973/74.

 

Do you have to be lyrically progressive to be prog? When I hear Kansas and Styx it's not happening. It's high school lyrics. Prog meant inspiration, and the "messages" that we got from the music. It was a subjective feeling that the music had reached you for a reason. When the US high school contingent got ahold of it it died.

 

These statements about King Crimson are not only wrong but are specious. Each incarnation of King Crimson from the 60s to the 80s is the very definition of progressive music.

 

Totally agree.

 

I'm going to recuse myself from any further discussion on this thread. I might as well just be honest about my reason: I really, really hate Emerson, Lake & Palmer's music.

 

True, though Lizard and Islands suggested a direction that "prog" generally didn't go in.

 

"Prog" did not lean to their 1972-74 avant-improvs either. And their 80s new-wave direction was also very un-"Proggy".

 

It should be mentioned that Utopia has reunited, is going on tour and tickets are on sale now. They are probably going to concentrate on the later power pop material, but keyboardist Roger Powell is no longer able to play and has been replaced by original Utopia keyboardist Ralph Schuckett, and rumor is that they will do some of the songs from the albums he played on - Todd Rundgren's Utopia and Another Live.

By the way, Todd cited Yes and the Mahavishnu Orchestra as significant influences.

 

Recuse is unnecessary. Although I'm a big ELP fan, their music hasn't aged as well as most of their counterparts. It's almost cool to put ELP down, even in prog circles. And let's face it, even most ELP diehards would admit they haven't issued anything worth a damn in over 40 years.

 

Well, there's no shortage of U.S. progressive rock. Progarchives lists over 2,000 U.S. artists. And plenty of them were/are great in my opinion. However, I suppose it's curious why there were no U.S. progressive artists in the vein of Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc. who were as famous as them. For some reason, it turned out that (a) the most famous U.S.-oriented prog artists were very different stylistically--like Frank Zappa, and (b) the U.S. artists that were closest to Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc. stylistically had trouble rising out of obscurity, at least until later when there was a "neo" or "revival" aspect to it.