MR>  GE> Most people interpret the definition of "progressive" to exclude
MR>  GE> anything that was commercially popular.
MR>    Well, that's not strictly true, but I know what you mean.  I usually
MR>  interpret `progressive' to mean particularly adventurous, innovative or
MR>  experimental music.
MR>  GE> If you listen to some of the non-hit tracks on Piano Man, there are
MR>  GE> some very innovative orchestrations and unusual selections of
MR>  GE> instruments.
MR>    True, but it's not at all what most people would label as progressive
MR>  because the structure of the songs themselves is fairly standard.
While the chord structures and time signatures are standard, I find the
slection of instruments very experimental, particular the use of
accordions. And the lyrical content of some tracks is quite adventurous.
MR>    Anyway, I can see your points, but I think you're really stretching
MR>  the definition of `progressive rock'.  From that particular era, the
MR>  term `progressive rock' is usually applied more to groups such as
MR>  King Crimson, Genesis, and Yes, much more than artists like the Eagles,
MR>  Elton John, and Billy Joel.
I understand that the the first three are usually considered
"progressive" while the latter three are not. And that comes back to my
first premise that no matter what a song sounds like, if it is
commercially popular, then the self-annointed arbiters of
progressiveness will usually automatically reject it.
I find that too many fans of "progressive" rock seem to go out of their
way to find obscure recordings that no one else has ever heard of to
discuss.
 * OLX 2.1 TD * My tagline is in the shop. This is a loaner.
--- RG0511/CDRMAIL 1.06b
---------------