GE>This comes back to my paraphrase of Kris Kristofferson's definition of a
GE>style of music. Since the definition of what is progressive music
GE>describes the MUSIC, discussions of whether an ARTIST is progressive is
GE>meaningless.
Bull crap.  An artist can most definitely called progressive if he or
she IS progressive.  For instance, Peter Gabriel is progresssive.
Robert Fripp is progressive. It's a a way of approaching music too,
rather than just the music itself.
GE>MR>  GE> ...that comes back to my first premise that no matter what a song
GE>MR>  GE> sounds like, if it is commercially popular, then the 
self-annointed
GE>MR>  GE> arbiters of progressiveness will usually automatically reject it.
GE>dismiss it. And I have to disagree about progressive music not selling
GE>well. True, it doesn't get much airplay. But then very, very few albums
GE>ever get more than one or two cuts played on the radio, yet when the
GE>album sells, ALL the cuts on it sell.
The Billboard sales charts prove you wrong.
GE>It really annoys me to have people dismiss artists who create albums
GE>that are compilations of "progressive" songs that express their artistic
GE>creativity, along with some pop songs to generate airplay and sales.
Who does that?  Some friend of yours?
GE>MR>            Martin
GE>I see what you're saying, but you seem to be implying that only if a
GE>song comes from an album where every single is purely progressive,
GE>and the artist has "progressive" credentials, can a song be
GE>considered as progressive music.
Nah, Martin never implied any such thing.  What and who are you
crusading against?  Why don't we just go back to discussing some good
progressive rock?
-.\\.
---
 þ OLX 2.1 TD þ MIDI Sysop, Power Windows BBS 205-881-8619
---------------