>
> Well, a lot of people do not realize that progressive rock needn't
> conform
> to the same limits as generic rock. As "progressive pop" would be
> something
> of an oxymoron, that seems to be by standard included in "progrock"
> too...
> ditto for categories like "prog-folk" or "prog-classic", sometimes
> "prog-electro" too.
Oh, I agree they're different beasts, but I have to say that GG wasn't
anywhere near what I conceive of as prog rock. my conception is closer
to the style practiced by King Crimson and early Genesis.
> Not sure where GG falls on that spectrum. My father is a big fan of
> them, so
> I know they're considered very influental among progrockers
> themselves, but
> are also quite unknown to the more casual prog fans. Myself I have not
> listened as much of them, though I can certainly confirm the
> cheerfulness.
I found it quite irritating to be honest. I only like songs with a bit
of attitude... cheerful makes me grit my teeth.