[Mike413]

Dale's definition is indeed the one that applies here for the purposes of this website. I'm sure even Jim will admit he's not trying to have the strictest definition of prog on the planet but rather what he feels fits under the prog umbrella as closely as possible. Ultimately, it's a judgement call.

I think the general definition(among many prog fans)has changed over the years. It has had to, otherwise it would just be the most retro sounding stuff being called prog and that would sort of be counter productive if ONLY that stuff could be called prog as well as maybe a bit of any oxymoron(which some will say much of today's prog is anyway but that's another story).

I would love to hear the opinion of someone who has paid no attention to prog since 1977 or so and see what they think of all these newer bands. They would probably dismiss bands like Dredg, Radiohead, Porcupine Tree, Muse, Coheed and Cambria and all the other more cutting edge kind of bands who are sometimes referred to as prog. They would probably also have a hard time with prog metal. Then again they might think anything made after 1977 could never be considered true prog rock(it happened and it's done). I have actually met people like that. Of course I would have a hard time referring to someone like that as a true prog fan. I for one think it's ok to base your sound on the old school bands(at least to some extent).