Hi Michael,
 =-> Quoting MICHAEL DOYLE's epistle to BILL HARRIS re: survival of PROG <-=
 MD> Prog Rock doesn't fit the usual ROCK criteria of being rebellious,
 MD> simple, and youth-oriented.  Prog-rock is complex, made for the
 MD> intellegent discerning listener, a REAL music lover, and is not very
 MD> youth oriented.  I would love to see it survive as a genre, but my
 MD> fear is that it has already died back in 1979 and we are just seeing
 MD> a few spurts of aftershocks.
   I'm not so sure that it's dead.  Rather it's evolved and shifted focus,
 making it a bit harder to label.  The defining lines have become blurred
 as progressive minded musicians search out and incorporate a diversity of
 new influences.  As you indicated later in your message, as the music
 became more and more complex, it was inevitable that they would lean
 towards exploring jazz.  But there are other styles being melded together 
 as well.
 
   For example, right now I'm listening to a John Goodsall acoustic guitar
 piece from Brand X's 1992 release called, _X Communication_.  This album
 could either be referred to as `Prog Rock' or `Jazz/Rock fusion'.
   It's similarly confusing for some of Allan Holdsworth's more recent
 work.  Yet (for the sake of convenience, I suppose) both these artists
 are to be found in the `pop/rock' section of my local music store.
   But those are obvious examples.  Bela Fleck & the Flecktones are found
 in the jazz section.  And they're as much a fusion band as Brand X and
 Mr. Holdsworth.  I'd have to say that the Flecktones could also be
 considered very progressive, although there's little if any `rock'
 influence there.  Where are the lines drawn?
   There is band called Jellyfish, whose music reminds me heavily of
 one of my favourite mid-70s Prog bands, Ambrosia.  But Jellyfish are
 definitely more pop-oriented.  `Prog-Pop', I guess you'd call it!?  
   I also listen to some progressive acoustic music by artists such as
 Tony Rice and David Grisman.  In my local store you find this stuff in
 the country section of all places!  Go figure.  It should probably be 
 in the jazz section.  There's no doubt that it's a type of fusion.  
 Maybe `Jazz-grass' or something.
   In recent years I've heard a number of things that could be labelled
 `Prog-Rock' including releases by the Steve Morse Band, the re-formed
 Dixie Dregs, Jethro Tull, and a couple of Robert Fripp projects including
 the recent reincarnation of King Crimson.  And what about the new albums
 by Rush and Yes?  I haven't heard them yet, but I suspect they're at
 least somewhat Prog-ish.  And where would the likes of Peter Gabriel,
 and Kate Bush fit in?
 MD> But I hope it lives on somehow (I'm talking as a viable historial
 MD> music hundreds of years from now), perhaps as a branch of Jazz under
 MD> Fusion.  IMHO, Prog-Rock has evolved far enough from rock that it has
 MD> more in common with fusion than rock, it's only that the pool of
 MD> artists come from a rock background, and not the somewhat more seriuos
 MD> jazz route.
   Exactly.  You can't really say it's strictly jazz.  But it isn't rock,
 either.  IMO, the only thing about `Prog-Rock' that's really changed is
 the `rock' orientation.  There's still lots of very progressive music
 out there.  I think it should simply be referred to as `Progressive'.
   Allan Holdsworth, Brand X, Patrick Moraz, Bela Fleck & the Flecktones,
 Dixie Dregs, Bill Laswell, Jonas Hellborg, Michael Manring, Tony Rice,
 David Grisman, Steve Morse, Brian Eno, David Sylvian, Jethro Tull, Yes,
 King Crimson, Rush, and Robert Fripp - all under one category!  Cool! 
   Anyway, in my opinion, Prog isn't dead.  If anything, it started to get
 a bit stale towards the end of the 70s and sought a fresh injection of
 inspiration from other genres.  It may be harder to label and, in some
 cases hard to find, but it's out there!  :-)
    Martin
   ~~~~~~~~
--- Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
---------------