Talk:Progressive rock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a closet prog fan who has previously taken Van der Graaf Generator to GA, and currently working on improving it to FA, this is one of those articles that I personally would like to bend over backwards to do the GA review for. I can see you've done a lot of work on this recently, so hopefully this will be a reasonably straightforward exercise.

Dablinks reports the article links to Prog (circular redirect) and New Prog
Checlinks reports no issues.

I can create free audio files for stereotypical prog instruments, though since my real Hammond has blown up, I sold my Moog, and I've only ever seen a Mellotron once at Andy "Planet Mellotron" Thompson's house once, they will be "faked" on modern equipment.

I also prefer sfn over rp for citing books. It's not a requirement for GA but it's worth doing for something like Keith Moon or Phil Lynott that cites the same source in 20+ places. The easiest way to do this is to copy and paste the entire window into a decent text editor and run a search / replace script on it.

I'll have a read through the article over the weekend and get back to you! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the link to Prog. Could that be the link to the disambiguation page? New prog must be left behind from before that article was merged, but somebody changed it to point to the New Prog section on this page. Is that OK, or should it be de-linked? Dementia13 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New prog was in the infobox - I've now removed it. This toolserver link still claims the article links to Prog, though I've looked through the entired rendered page source (thinking it might be picked up on a template transclusion) and can't find it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My preference for sound files is to include them in the context of a song. Keep in mind that part of my fair use rationale for certain files, such as "Starless" and "Eruption," is that they are demonstrations of instrument sounds. If those are made redundant, a pedant might request the removal of some of those files, which IMO are more instructive than images or even words. Dementia13 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read through the article and I've started to make comments. Fundamentally the article more or less meets the GA criteria, much of the work having already been done through extensive talk page discussions and trips to the Guild of Copy Editors, so I anticipate passing this at some point when I've finished checking everything, and what I'm listing below is more FAC-lite than anything else.

Characteristics

"Neither Greg Lake nor Boz Burrell had ever been a bassist prior to filling that role in King Crimson" is bending the truth a bit - both had played guitar, so the transition to bass was easier. A much better example, IMHO, is Roger Waters, who several sources (example here) have remarked was (and, presumably, still is) tone deaf, meaning Rick Wright had to tune his bass for him in concert. Jeffrey Hammond-Hammond is another example of a self-confessed lack of musical dexterity, and I can pull out a book source quote for that if you need it.

I'll revise that: The Greg Lake source did mention that he dabbled in bass with The Gods. "Easier transition" notwithstanding, those guys filled their role, but they couldn't have done the group improv or polyrhythmic stuff heard in later versions of Crimso. They were competent, but they weren't virtuosic. There's also a noticeable difference between Hammond-Hammond and the guys before and after him. I wonder if he really played on the studio albums? If that source is not too much trouble, I'd like to have it. I wanted to work him in, but I never got around to chasing down a source. Dementia13 (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I will revise that, but I need to hunt down a source or two to do so correctly. Dementia13 (talk)

I've had a go, using a quote from the 20 Years of Jethro Tull box set, though like an idiot I've now put the box back in the cupboard without getting out the serial number, page number and author. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical aspects

"long-form pieces of twenty minutes or more are not uncommon." - might be worth some examples, such as Echoes (Pink Floyd song), Tubular Bells, Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Supper's Ready, The Gates of Delirium.

Some examples are given in later sections and are usually discussed in a little more detail. I hope to avoid examples with no explanation, because they invite every reader to clutter the article with their favorite. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Yes' use of classic music, it would be helpful to mention that Rick Wakeman was instrumental in making this happen. There was an old copy of Mojo (magazine) that mentioned a direct quote from Bill Bruford stating this was the case (don't have it anymore, sorry).

I'd dispute Pink Floyd's close association with the Mellotron - it was only used in the studio, and doesn't appear on anything after Atom Heart Mother. A better example of notable 'tron band would be Wakeman-era Yes or Barclay James Harvest.

It's a sourced statement, sorry. Are you sure they never used it live? Atom Heart Mother is full of 'tron brass, and they did play that live. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was used live - most of the brass on AHM is real, and when performed live was done by real brass, or nothing at all. Still, a sourced comment is a sourced comment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Sound on Sound source doesn't really state that Tony Banks used an RMI in place of a Hammond. He certainly used it in place of an acoustic piano live. Also worth a mention is the Hohner Pianet which Banks used at the start of the band's career to substitute piano and (via a stomp box), synth. Van der Graaf Generator and Argent (are they prog enough?) also used the Pianet.

I'll double-check that. There may be a reference mix-up: I definitely read something that named a specific passage in a specific song ("The Cinema Show"?) that featured organ arpeggios played on an RMI. Argent: I saw them mentioned frequently. Every author basically called them "almost" a prog band. "Precursors" would be the most likely place to mention them. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double-check complete: The article definitely states that. It does so both in the body of the article and in an interview with Banks. Here's the relevant text:

If I had to pick the single most memorable aspect of the 368, it would have to be that remarkable organ mode. When I first heard albums such as Selling England By The Pound, and in particular The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (Genesis, 1973 and 1974 respectively) I was captivated by the organ on many of the tracks. I knew that Tony Banks was using a small Hammond but, try as I might, I couldn't get close to the delicate, phasey timbres he was producing. It wasn't until I saw him perform with a keyboard rig comprising just a Hammond, Mellotron, ARP Pro-Soloist, and an RMI that I realised that the sounds in question were emanating from his piano! This was many years before MIDI and there was no question of him playing one keyboard from another, so I had solved the mystery. The keyboard I craved was an RMI Electra-piano.

He used a Hammond, but he got additional organ sounds from the RMI. Dementia13 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where the confusion is. That isn't saying Banks used a RMI in place of a Hammond, just that he used an RMI alongside one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Yamaha Electric Grand probably wants to mention its use came later in the 70s to the other keyboards.

I wonder if it's excessive detail to mention it at all? It was more of a road instrument. I didn't see much definitive indication that a band featured it in studio recordings. I have similar reservations about the Pianet: Do we have something on specific ways that it was used in prog, or on bands that made it a featured instrument? Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks is the most notable user (I have a interview in Nick Awde's "Mellotron" book where he describes using it as a lead instrument between the departure of Ant Phillips and the arrival of Steve Hackett), so I'd mention him if anyone. The Yamaha Electric Grand didn't appear until the late 1970s, so it kind of misses the classic "prog" period out.

"Rick Wakeman appeared onstage surrounded by ten or more keyboards at a time" probably wants to be sourced. The "Sounding out" video from 1971 bootlegged all over YouTube has a Hammond, Mellotron, Fender Rhodes and Moog - just 4 (though to be fair this was his first tour with them). Off the top of my head, a typical Close to the Edge era rig would have been grand piano, RMI piano, Hammond, 2 mellotrons, 2 moogs - a total of 7.

It is sourced. I'll copy/paste the reference to make it clearer. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rats. It's not there. The number's legit, but I have to find where I got it from. Dementia13 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was where I thought it was. It's good that you grabbed this article quickly- this source is a library book that I had to place on hold and wait for. It's due back in a few days, along with a couple of others, and it might not be easy to get a second time, so it's good that it's still here to refer to. Dementia13 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Sound on Sound source citing Pink Floyd's use of vocal delay have a link to the online version of the article.

It was there, but I edited it to show the title instead of just a number. Dementia13 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Progressive rock guitarists showed a distinct preference for Hiwatt amplifiers" probably wants examples. David Gilmour and Robert Fripp certainly used them, but Steve Howe preferred a Fender Combo amp (mind you, he's probably the exception to the rule).

He is the exception. You'd be surprised how many sources mentioned that everybody except Howe used Hiwatts. IMO, it's not the most relevant fact, but I thought that if it turned up that much, I'd better include it. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is often accompanied by .... a Chapman Stick" - I'm not sure "often" is correct here, aside from Tony Levin, who else is a notable user of one?

Trey Gunn and at least one other guy, I forget who. I'll look at the phrasing again. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Genesis singer Phil Collins .... performed in the London stage production of Oliver". Well yes, but so did the not-at-all-prog Steve Marriott. I'm not sure how this is relevant.

It's not to draw a connection from Broadway and prog, it's that the stage has a very high performance standard and cutthroat competition for those few roles. If he made it, he's frickin' good. I actually think that it's more relevant than bringing Steve Marriott into the discussion, because he certainly wasn't doing Otis Redding licks in Oliver! As for Sonja Kristina, several sources noted the theatrical influence in her Curved Air work. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, not disputing her! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding time signatures, I'm sure the BBC 4 programme Prog Rock Britannia has a quote from Bill Bruford saying he always wanted to experiment with standard pop song times, and put things in 5/4 - the video isn't working at the moment so I can't pull out a direct cite.

I'll check into it. I saw a great Rush quote about 7/4 before I was ready to use it, and I never could find it again. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting for this keyboard magazine source, citing Keith Emerson's use of quartal harmony, doesn't seem to be formatted correctly.

I checked, but I don't get it. What specifically is the problem? Dementia13 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember now, I'll have to have another look :-/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "Fracture" is built on free improvisation? Most of King Crimson's improvisations are credited to the whole band, where as this is credited only to Fripp.

It's sourced. I don't know why the discrepancy in the credit, IMO there's no doubt that it's an improv. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm Macan p. 73, 74 and 78 cites Van der Graaf's "Lemmings" as being about dystopia and the dehumanizing effects of society?

I'll double-check. There may be a couple of songs mixed together in that citation. Dementia13 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I had the wrong page number. Dementia13 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"21st Century Schizoid Man anticipates cyberpunk by several years" probably wants to be preceded by "In the opinion of author Bill Martin" as it's rather objective.

Rephrased. Dementia13 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Aspects

I think "Genesis took a less spectacular approach" needs to be reworded - at the moment, it implies their approach to a live show wasn't as good as Pink Floyd's, as opposed to merely different.

Changed to "less extravagant." Is that acceptable, or do you want the word "less" removed as well? Dementia13 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that sounds fine to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be worth mentioning that stage presentations were comprehensively satirised in This is Spinal Tap?

I think it's off-topic, because it's not prog-specific. Nothing substantial ever showed up in research. The Alan White seashell thing was in that movie, but Yes was not the only band to have an incident like that. Funny how, if you dig through the refs, ELP and Yes both try to take credit for being the real Spinal Tap. Dementia13 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

This book source states "Without The Beatles, or someone else who had done what The Beatles did, it is fair to assume that there would have been no progressive rock." I think that quote, or one like it, is well worth putting in the article, as I think the Beatles were prog's primary influences over and above all others - after all, in 1967 they were still the biggest band in the world.

Added as block quote Dementia13 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and carrying on from where we left off.

As well as The Byrds, I'm pretty sure Yes' harmonies were also influenced by The Fifth Dimension - there's a snippet of an interview with Bruford (he seems to be the general spokesman of prog!) in the YesYears video saying this. (Sorry, I keep bringing up things I've thrown away or given to charity shops)

If I find it, I'll add it. I saw, then lost, an interview where one of them (Howe, I think) stated clearly that they were imitating The Byrds. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, 1996, p.21 gives a laundry list of vocal harmony influences (also The Association and Simon and Garfunkel) and cites YesYears as his source. I'm afraid that level of detail is more appropriate for the Yes article than it is for a section that is intended to demonstrate what influences were important for the formation of prog. Dementia13 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's keep what we already have. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney was just as much into the "swinging London" scene in 67 as Lennon (at this point, the latter, still in his pre-Yoko years, was married with a child and living in Weybridge). I'll dig out one of my Beatles books to source that.

I think I have a ref that places McCartney at the same event, a recent documentary called A Technicolor Dream. I'll verify. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added something. Dementia13 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Procol Harum began to use a greater variety of acoustic instruments." Does this need a cite? I can't think of anything apart from some harpsichord on In Held Twas In I. Speaking of which, that BBC 4 programme cites that Procol track as a key influence on prog, one of the first side-long suites on an album.

That statement is from the citation that follows, which mentions it in relation to A Salty Dog. "In Held Twas In I" was formerly mentioned, but I removed the section because it was essentially a list. I've been looking for a way to reintroduce it in some way that doesn't duplicate material that already exists. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I copy/pasted the ref and specified A Salty Dog. I added "In Held 'Twas In I," but then I saw that it had been discussed in a previous section, so I undid my own edit. Dementia13 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that Chicago are prog. They did do experimental work ("Free Form guitar" is six minutes of excruciating guitar feedback) but most of their extended compositions are straight forward jamming. Soft Machine are (imho) a better example of integrating jazz instruments, particularly after the departure of Robert Wyatt and arrival of Karl Jenkins. And it might be well worth mentioning Van der Graaf's David Jackson and his simultaneous horn playing, also influenced by Roland Kirk.

They're not being represented as "prog", they're mentioned in "Precursors": That section shows how various influences came together to form prog. It's my failure if that's not clear, so I'll take a look and see what's wrong. Chicago, however, did piece songs together into side-long suites, such as the "Ballad for a Girl From Buchannon" on Chicago II. I was looking also to mention the Erik Satie pieces on the second BS&T album as a reaching out toward classical, but apparently nobody writes about that anymore. That particular paragraph is to show how jazz influences were brought into rock. VdGG weren't a major influence on the genre's formative years, so David Jackson would be off-topic in that section. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reordered the paragraph in an attempt to add specificity and make it clearer that we're still not yet talking about full-fledged prog. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of lack of female interest in prog, it's certainly true the audience was mostly male, but there was a related category of Progressive folk, such as The Incredible String Band and Pentangle, who contained female members. An even more notable (imho) example of female-led prog were Shirley and Dolly Collins, who released albums on Harvest Records and contained a side-long suite on one of their albums - both stereotypical prog characteristics. The music, being a collection of experimental folk with traditional English instruments, is quite outside the typical pop fare of the time.

I kind of hate that sentence: It's a legacy from before I worked on the article, but numerous references do support it and the BBC documentary discusses it at some length. The Hegarty/Halliwell reference goes into some depth about progressive folk's more prominent female representation. I'll look for a way to work that in, as IMO the folk influence is underrepresented here. I've addressed that a little in the past week. Renaissance and Curved Air are repeatedly named as two of prog's most prominent bands, so evidence tends to dispute the Collinses' "greater notability". I'll see if the H&H has anything relevant on them. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded that paragraph and added the Collinses to "Precursors". Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Europe, worth mentioning that at one point, Van der Graaf Generator were almost as big as The Beatles in Italy during the early 70s.

That's a good point. I'd like a ref. I'll add Genesis with that, as I have a good ref on that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added something about VdGG's popularity, but I didn't compare it to that of the Beatles, because the previous sentence stated that Italy previously had no interest in rock. Saying that VdGG were as popular as someone the Italians didn't care about makes a very weak point. Dementia13 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was more a figure of speech rather than a literal comparison to The Beatles - you were right not to mention that! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning that Foreigner included King Crimson founder member Ian McDonald?

That's why I list them as tied to progressive rock, but stopping to mention each band's specific connection kills readability. It's a fascinating detail but, objectively, not essential. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pink Floyd were unable to repeat that success" is rather POV. From a purely commercial perspective, the post Waters Floyd was certainly successful.

Ouch. That sentence is a placeholder that I never finished. I'll get on that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See if it's better now. Dementia13 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OK Computer, I don't recall music downloads being particularly popular in 1997 - it was only around 2002/2003 that they started to overtake CDs.

Illegal downloads were an issue earlier. IIRC, Napster had already been prosecuted and shut down by 2001. The reference states a connection between downloads and a change in perception of the album as a unit, but it doesn't give a timeline for this and doesn't say at what point the pendulum swung back. It took until the middle of the next decade for bands like Coheed and Cambria and The Mars Volta to appear. I'll double-check the clarity. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Tool not tour with King Crimson at some point?

I can work that in. Existing references mention that. Dementia13 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dementia13 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Festivals

"King Crimson made their first major appearance at the 1969 Hyde Park free concert, before a crowd of 650,000." Stones in the Park, on the other hand, cites four sources to give an estimate between 250-000 and 500,000.

Who are you going to believe: Robert Fripp or four journalists? I'll rephrase. Dementia13 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to specify that the figure was an estimate. Dementia13 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is CalProg particularly notable?

That's another legacy section of which I'm not fond. It's essentially a list, and I'd just as soon it were spun off into a page of its own. I'll delete CalProg if I can't find anything on it. Dementia13 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found: 1.) Notability is for article subjects, not article content per WP:NNC. 2.) A quick search of "CalProg" on HighBeam turns up three articles, all of which I have used in List of progressive rock bands. That's not huge coverage, and each of those articles is about a band and not the festival, but that satisfies the notability guidelines to which it's not held anyway. Kept, but trimmed. Dementia13 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

ELP were infamously slated by John Peel as "a waste of talent and electricity" (source here)

Lester Bangs had better: He called them something like "war criminals." Dementia13 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dementia13 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the article swept. Next thing I need to do is check the sources and the media links, and reply to comments above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

A lot (if not, indeed, most) references are all free text. This won't stop a GA passing (all you need is the cite to be inline, and linked to a reference section which describes the source in enough detail to verify it), but I'd recommend using the {{cite}} template and friends if you can, ideally using {{sfn}} for the book references. Let me know if you need a hand with this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't use citation templates inline- and if you want to know why, join the WP:GOCE and copy edit some articles that are done that way, there really needed to have been some kind of color code to separate the citations from the text- but they're excellent for a reference section in combination with inline {{sfn}}s. I'll make everything {{sfn}}: that works fine for any type of source. I'm not sure what you mean by "free text," but I'm agreeable to converting the references. It should take a little while, though, as I'm about to have a lot less time available. The page may be in transition for a few days. Dementia13 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been busy getting my own articles up to GA over the last day or two :-/ ... but anyway, I'm putting this on hold for the minute. I'll then run through everything again and we should be up for a pass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've gone over the article again and gone through it. There was one uncited chart position in the "New prog" section, which I've cited. Neo prog looks okay, I questioned Saga (band)'s suitability as being popular but it seems they had a few top five hits in Germany, so that's okay. Marillion were, in their early career, compared to Genesis (Grendel being the prime suspect in question) no matter how much they dislike it or how un-Genesis they've sounded ever since Misplaced Childhood.

As for the audio samples, there's a lot of them, but they've all got valid NFCC tags on them, as have all the images, so they fulfill the GA criteria. I think this, plus the reference formatting, is what needs the most work, and if you want to work on the article some more, this is where I'd focus your energy on.

Having said all of that, the article is a comprehensive and perfectly readable introduction to this genre of music, given an balanced account of its ups and downs, properly cited inline to sources, using media per guidelines, and stable, so I'm happy to give this a Pass as it meets the GA criteria. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort and input. What specifically needs work with the samples, the fact that there are many? Punk rock also has a lot, and it's a FA, and its subject is much less diverse than progressive rock. If I were asked to remove one, I'd ask, "Which two sound alike?" There are many distinct points to demonstrate.

Since you're the second to mention Saga, it's apparently a regional thing. The reference cited is an interview in which the guitarist mentions that when their album sales dropped to 500,000, the record label saw them as declining, but a modern album can be considered a hit with much lower sales yet. Maybe they weren't big in the UK, but they were huge in North America (they were Canadian), had several gold and platinum albums, and had a big presence in MTV's early years. IIRC, Hegarty & Halliwell was the reference that discussed them in connection with neo-prog. Dementia13 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]