Well to be honest Acclaimedmusic is a shit site with shittier lists. Their hard on for Nirvana is stupid, they put The Who in like, the 20's or something for greatest rock bands and Nirvana in top 10. Site's gay, in every fathomable meaning of the word

Other than Eminem and Radiohead, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I haven't listened to much Outkast, maybe I should, but still...this might be differing opinions, but as I said, I've been exploring full discographies now of 60's/70's bands, and I'm surprised that outside of all the major hits, there are still SO many good songs that are way better than any White Stripes or Radiohead song I've ever heard. But this is my opinion. Hence why I'm not bringing up the list. Still...Britney Spears, as far as I know, didn't write her own music, and half the time didn't sing it, so is she really an 'artist' (in the musical sense) or a 'performer'. Either way, she shouldn't belong up there, the fact that she's ahead of the genius of Coldplay, Eminem, and Radiohead is very sad.

PS, I hate rap and hip-hop as a genre, because it's overloaded with terrible, terrible, talentless music, and new artists up there every week of equal suckage, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the could ones, Eminem, 2pac, and Public Enemy in the 80's are great musicians and lyricists, undeniable.

Eww. I do like Tool every now and then (although I prefer their '90s stuff). Dream Theater are talented, but I don't find them enjoyable. And Coldplay are really nothing special. I prefer them over Spears, but that doesn't say much. Good thing this list isn't based on my preference.

I like Coldplay because they mesh good lyrics, a great/likeable sound (albeit not totally original), ambiance, and emotion in their music, it makes for a great band of likes we don't see anymore.

I'm a prog guy, I've heard every Yes and King Crimson song ever, and after listening to Images and Words again, you can feel Yes'/Crimsons' legacy within the band, they have great music theory/composition combined with technical prowess to make good sounding music, which is extremely rare, and IMO, the last remaining 'true' prog band (I never considered Rush 'true' prog, they were too mainstream, like Floyd, when I say 'true' prog I mean Crimson/Yes/ELP/early Genesis/Traffic/etc.). Tool takes the uniqueness and creativity criteria of the era, they mesh AMAZING, in your face, honest lyrics with technical prowess, musical creativity, and a unique and original sound that I can't compare to anything before and blatantly place a 'copied' label, sure they've had influence, but they are one of the most unique bands of the last two decades.

So we have the creative/original/complex band, the technical/skilled/progressive band, and the emotional/well written/popular band. Those take the 3 slots for me.

Do you know who Radiohead are?

I think he mentioned Radiohead once. Both Radiohead and Muse excel in every one of his subjective criteria.

He thinks Rush and Pink Floyd are "too popular" to be prog bands, which makes no sense; genre =/= popularity.

Ok, I am wasting brain cells by being in this thread.

You do realise, acclaimedmusic don't make their own lists, right? They collate lists from critics and tot them up. They don't chose where the Who or Nirvana are listed.

And I never realised that a website could have sex or sexual attractions.

I like Radiohead, and to some extent Muse, but I beg to differ with the "Muse meets all of my criteria".

And I don't know where you got I think Rush and Floyd are "too popular" to be prog bands, I never said that at all. You clearly misinterpreted my words. I'm saying due to the popularity of those prog bands (Who are, by all means, TRUE prog, I never said they weren't), the MORE PROGRESSIVE bands were overshadowed and didn't get as much of a mainstream audience.

Avery Island is also right: Acclaimedmusic's lists are an aggregator of numerous lists made by other publications and websites, combining them all into a big list.

Okay, I was wrong, I didn't realize that I used True prog twice. Let's change 'true' to 'pure'. There, no I do not feel Pink Floyd and Rush are as 'pure' prog bands as Yes/Crimson/ELP/Early Genesis.

Why not? Because they were more mainstream? Bullshit reasoning.

Coldplay are a good band in the fact that they have captured the essence and sound of a few great bands and fused that to their own. They may not be THAT special but i enjoy them more than Tool and Dream Theater generally.

That's not why, they didn't push the boundaries of music composition and creativity, they were very creative, but saying that they tried to be as experimental, original, and complex as King Crimson is just, IMO, not correct. to the extent of those other bands, IMO. What is the exact definition of the 'progressive' genre? If I have that, then I might be able to better understand the validity/incorrectness of my statements.

However, I will say Dark Side of the Moon was a pretty damn proggy album, in all aspects, except possibly the difficulty of the actual pieces. It's just Floyd's other stuff was, not as proggy? As I'd say, I'd need the definition that you guys go by.