Wonderful additons, Hingehead. Thanks for contributing. Thanks for that musical link. I'm checking it out now.While I've heard a lot of those tunes, I certainly have not heard all of them. Something I hope and intend to get around to.
Before I forget: what about Paul Simons' Graceland
Album. Progressive music...probably rock.
There are a few factors that affect how and where you might place these in a categories, if you are disposed to doing so. Sometimes it's easier to say what some tune's category is not than what it is.
1. how much of a fan you are of the genre.
2. how narrow you want to define progressive, art or symphonic rock.
2. your age now or age of when you first heard the tunes as to how (or even whether or not) you might consider them. Also, if you heard it when it was fresh and new. A 25-yr- old doesn't consider Moody Blues 'Nights in White Satin' Prog rock, but a 60-yr- old is more likley to. What was progressive and fresh in 1967 won't sound at ALL progressive even in 1975.
3. how exposed and eclectic the listener is. Without a comparison to a broad range of influences in music, not just progressive, the decision is a lot tougher.
Note: Some of what Queen did was what I consider Art or Progressive ('Bohemian Rhapsody'
). But it could be debated that they may have turned Arena Rock into art form. They sure helped make it popular.
I have to say I consider almost all of Family, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, most of Brian Eno, much of Genesis w/ Peter Gabriel, Yes, Soft Machine, ELP, much of Roxy Music. Some of the others I'll need to listen to or relisten.
As for Jethro Tull, I can't think of a category, but it was progressive music, for sure. Some music defies categorization. Time signatures, instruments, etc., prohibit. Family's 'Music in a Doll's House'
was a perfect example of that.
As far as Renaisssance goes, I hold a special place in my heart for as progressive music, but not Prog rock.