Talk:Timeline of progressive rock

message: DETAILS OR NO DETAILS?
In February 2010, per the open tasks list on the Progressive Rock Project page, I moved all detail from this article to separate articles for each decade. It remained that way for 5.5 years. In Aug. 2015, someone started adding "Newly Formed Bands" for each decade. Now, I am revisiting this page and find this to be confusing. It is duplicate information that can be found in each detailed article. It also implies that this article is all there is (distracts the reader from the fact that they can click into detailed articles for each decade). For today, I added some clarification text to this page so that it is more obvious to the reader that there are detailed articles available. I would like to hear what others think about this page? Should it basically just be a top-level menu to get readers into the detailed articles with no detail? Or should it maintain the current level of detail (listing newly formed bands) as well as linking to the detailed articles? Nickelarcade (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note this page is no longer restricted to events since 2001. Bondegezou 12:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add any band with a reliable source claiming it is Progressive Rock. Ideally, everything should be here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Edited opening statement.--Flonkus 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Would the addition of Sonic Youth's Daydream Nation be considered unacceptable? I was just wondering, due to the inclusion of Radiohead? Possibly Moon Safari by Air? Makrugaik
S:::onic Youth? Great band, Daydream Nation is a great album but I don't think they could be considered progressive rock unless you stretch the definition to the breaking point. Moon Safari, with its sonic ties to Pink Floyd would be OK, IMO.  
:::Also, Can has Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi but not Future Days?!?!  I really think that great album should be added.(Sorry, don't know how to add my user name, this is my first time in joining an editing discussion).
:::I feel that, while most Sonic Youth fans believe that Daydream Nation is a highpoint in their career, it might not be the best example of their progressive rock traits.  They began as a band out of the punk and no wave scenes, the latter seeming to come from a fairly progressive background.  Also, when listening to earlier albums like Bad Moon Rising or Evol, there is definitely much more of a progressive feel, especially in comparison to an album like Dirty.  Sonic Youth definitely strikes me as a grey area band, but not any more than Radiohead (Pablo Honey and The Bends don't strike me as progressive rock at all).
:::Also, where are the 13th Floor Elevators in all of this?  Their first album predates Sgt Pepper, which would even discredit Portnoy (see below in The Beatles/The Who secion).
:::Oh, and just to kick the dirt up a bit more, there are tons of more underground bands that have came out of the same scene as bands other bands listed (Mastodon, Coheed & Cambria, etc) that are considered "mathrock" or "mathcore" (the terms alone reek of prog rock). Some of these bands are heavier and can almost be called "prog metal", some of them more in the "indie rock" world.  Examples: Botch, Converge, Lightning Bolt, Don Caballero, Off Minor, Daughters, Sweep The Leg Johnny, Circle Takes The Square, etc (all bands listed have wikipedia pages).  Even later era Black Flag (The Process Of Weeding Out EP, a perfect example) falls into this category, as they were trying to shock, even alienate punk crowds with much longer songs and extreme time changes.  Could these bands potentially count?  Sonikmatsuri (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Add anything that you can consider prog rock. This includes experimental prog, math rock, art rock, and symphonic rock. If you have sources, better. We'll be cleaning the list up pretty soon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic Youth 

message: Quidam is linked to the wrong Quidam namely the happening from Cirque du Soleil in stead of the Polish band  see 
Qqq1 11:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: I see we have some progressive metal bands on the list, notably Dream Theater. If they are going to be on this list then I believe all Prog Metal bands should be as well. If that cannot be agreed then I nominate that Dream Theater be removed from the list except for their one album which was true Prog Rock.
:You can add progressive metal dont worry. You can add bands and albums of artists of all progresive rock genres and sub-genres. M.V.E.i. 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progessive Metal, Yes or No? 

message: Added the Beatles for their early experimentation and The Who for their rock opera works to the "1962 - 1967 newly formed bands" section. Don't remove. It's kind of silly to have a chapter titled "1962 - 1967" where the first entry is from 1964. It's also silly to remove the Beatles and The Who when their albums are listed in the ensuing years.74.77.208.52 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Progressive Rock and Classic Rock don't have to be completely disconnected genres. Prog started a specific type of Psychedelic and "Classic" Rock before eventually splitting off to become it's own thing. Those early stages can still fall under the "Prog Rock" label, even while they also fall under "Classic Rock RSCorundum (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatles and Who

message: Would it be useful to have short notes on the timeline? For example, for the first section, there could be a note that The Beatles were very influential on the genre (but are not generally considered a prog band) or on why acts like the Daevid Allen Trio and Uriel are historically significant despite being short-lived? If no-one objects, I'll start doing some. Bondegezou 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on the timeline

message: It says that in 1974 Peter gabriel left genesis, then it says, with much more information, that in 1975 peter gabriel left genesis. Which is correct?
Ashe613 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Gabriel and Genesis 

message: Not to be a whinger, but there are several artists listed in this article that would not be widely regarded as progressive rock. What exactly are the criteria for being included in this article? 41.245.131.170 (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prog? 

message: The order should be by date that first album is released. Not formation date. I would even suggest that the order should be by first Progressive Rock album. For instance,  the first album for Genesis is 1968's From Genesis To Revelation which is not a Progressive Rock album. The should be listed as starting their Progressive Rock era with 1970's Trespass. This would give the reader a better Timeline to understand the development of Progressive Rock. Firstlensman (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of the timeline