Hi Jon,
No disrespect intended, oxymoron is just a fun word to say and I don't
get to use it that often!
No need for concern. I'm a big fan of vocabulary, and I'm so egotistical I can't really be insulted anyway... it's like trying to offend a cat.
I think the confusion's coming from definition - these are all , in one way or another, rock bands (especially Queensryche). 'Mainstream pop' makes me think of the lowest common denominator crud that's clogging up the charts, although there has, of course, been plenty of 'prog flavoured pop' over the decades:
I'm really not as curmudgeonly as I come off. The confusion is probably attributable to my sincere dislike for 99% of music or more, and utter disdain for anything that fails to keep my attention and give me that "goosebumps" kind of rush that I used to experience with a certain few bands, the Yes, ELP, the Moodies, old Genesis, and a handful of others featuring that kind of truly innovative and experimental merging of musicality and technology. EVERYBODY else in my musical universe are also-rans with no gray area in between. I either love someone or they suck, and most suck. The exclusion is the bands that I've learned to tolerate playing the music of, because it permits me to arrange and use the kind of sonic palette I prefer. The Evanescence song that started this conversational thread is actually the FIRST music I've had hit me with that rush in many, many years. Thus my somewhat derisive comment about mainstream. I'm really quite thankful that the "prog-flavored mainstream pop" to which I referred exists, because it's the only way that I have been able to perform for all these years, up to and including my current band since I don't speak Country or R & B or other genres very well at all.
Jon E Salley
M400 #886