<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wbIMx2MYNXk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think the distinction, at least in my mind, is in the METHOD.

Prog rock produces increasingly complex and interesting ideas through application of musical theory and technique.

Syd Barret produced increasingly complex and interesting ideas in a completely random, non-technical way, much like other psychedelic songwriters at the time.

The rest of the Floyd though were very technical and got their hands on any and every piece of technology they could.

Pink Floyd for sure. I am Rushed out...

It's easy to see why Pink Floyd transitioned to being a progressive rock band, though. Psychedelia could basically be considered proto-prog much in the same way that Led Zepplin plays a sort of proto-metal.

That's why I specifically said the EARLY Floyd stuff really can't be considered prog...

I can agree with that.

You just have to be careful with strict definitions, otherwise someone gets the impression that Boston is "progressive rock". :D

How is Queensryche even in the conversation?

They're better than ****ing Rush.

That top 100 list has Styx and Primus on it. I'm not enough into arguing over what is and isn't prog rock to know for sure but those two wouldn't have been the first to spring to mind (the Beatles either).

I dunno. They aren't as legendary or as popular.

That said, they have two albums that are quite good (The Warning and Empire), a self-titled EP that is GREAT, and their album Operation: Mindcrime might just be the very best rock album of the 1980's.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold up...

It's absolutely in the conversation, IMO. It's a near-flawless album.

Pink Floyd by a lot.

three totally different bands with three totally different sounds. Sitting around a campfire after midnight is Pink Floyd time. Cruisin to a fishin trip is Rush time, workin out is Queensryche time.