Proto prog thread

[enigmatic]

Lev - nice post on previous page, well written, you have a skill my friend. I don't agree with you that "proto-prog" is a distinct music style, sorry. Please read the rest of this post for for explanations.

Well to the old list's defence, in the 90's the " proto-prog genre" did sometimes mean those obscure UK bands that had only one or two albums (generally on the following labels: Dawn, Neon, Vertigo , Harvest, etc...) but I'd tend to say that was through catalogue mail vendors that this happened.

You were right, Trane. As soon as you mentioned 90s, something clicked in my mind.
On old progressive rock newsgroup rec.music.progressive, the bands like Cressida, Gnidrolog, Graciius were referenced as proto-prog, but this was indended a shortcut, a label, not a subgenre or distinct musical style.
Here is the quote taken from R.M.P archives - response to the question "What is proto-prog?":

"On one hand, it refers to the bands that rose to prominence during the
psychedelic era that most foreshadowed the sound of later "mature"
symphonic progressive bands. The principle players here would be the
Moody Blues, Procol Harum and the Nice.

The term is also applied to the numerous also-rans in England who
recorded between 1969 and 1971, who ran the gamut between the symphonic
sound of King Crimson, the folk rock of Fairport Convention, the blues
rock of the Groundhogs and the hard rock of Deep Purple (who tended to
run the gamut themselves) with sometimes of pinch of country/roots rock
as well (which tended to imbue most rock of that period.) The more
notable acts in this area include Gracious, Gravy Train, Gnidrolog,
Spring, Beggars Opera, the Web/Samurai, East of Eden, May Blitz,
Quatermass, T2, Mogul Thrash and so on."

Because the term proto-prog includes different set of bands for different prog fans, I would suggest (again) to change the name of the list and I agree with Trane that we need to separate 60s proto- bands from early 70s bands.

I wouldn't mix 60's "proto" that PA has constructed (and which some may see as revisionist and/or misleading), with the 70's "proto" that's obviously the goal of the OP

Well said. However, the question of boundaries does come into play, imo. For example, someone mentioned Elias Hulk, whom I would place in the Heavy Prog category along with others like Clear Blue Sky, Bodkin, Andromeda, Norman Haines Band, etc, even though they do exhibit some of the characteristics that you list. Likewise the Rural Prog bands who came out of that early 70s stew, as Psych was morphing towards Prog Rock, such as Northwind, The Dog That Bit People, Shape Of The Rain, Aubrey Small, etc, who also exhibit some of the characteristics that you mention, yet are better placed in the Rural Prog category, imo. If not, you're going to have a huge list of fairly disparate bands.

As Lev stated in his post above, all these bands can be examples of what we are looking for. The questions is are they essential? I think most of these bands didn't make the list because nobody thought of them as being indispensable examples of early 70's prog. I believe that what happened to Aardvard too.

[nosebone]

"Golden period 1967-71" sounds like were getting closer.

Btw, Is Odin Levgans father?




Maybe we should extend the timeline to 72!

[Trane]

I am with Lev on this one.

The label either represents sub-genre of prog or time period of prog (e.g 1967-1971). You and others imply that proto-prog as a not a sub-genre since it cannot be played outside of that time period.

Then if proto-prog reflects time period it is only logical that all those albums from that period should be listed under proto-prog label including Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc...but that is not what happened here....Why?

I don't have a ready-made answer, but it seems evident to me that TYA, ITOTCK, AHM, Cryme and other big names' albums of those years had a "full-blown prog" formula (in the classic sense of the definition), much ahead (refined) of most of those bands in the OP.

Again, it's more of a "I know when I hear it" thing".

[moecurlythanu]

Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, frankly I never hesitated calling all of the bands you mentioned (except three that I haven't heard) proto-prog. I just used to specify that some of them are on the heavier side of the spectrum, whereas others have a more rural/folky sound. I agree the list will likely be quite diverse musically, but is that a bad thing? Say, we make a similar list for RIO – unless we only count recordings that were issued during the short-lived era of original movement, it will inevitably include things as diverse as early Samla Mammas Manna albums and later Art Zoyd albums that literally have nothing in common except the general non-commercial stance. And even with classic big-5 prog you've got quite a big distance between, I dunno, Pink Floyd and Gentle Giant. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

As Lev stated in his post above, all these bands can be examples of what we are looking for. The questions is are they essential? I think most of these bands didn't make the list because nobody thought of them as being indispensable examples of early 70's prog. I believe that what happened to Aardvard too.

Well, as you're not carving out another subgenre, I suppose that's all good and well, but watch people refer back to it 2 years from now in subgenre arguments.

Fwiw, For my taste, I'd have Northwind, Bodkin, TDTBP, Shape Of The Rain and Aubrey Small as essential, but I think they're not a real fit for the original list. If the focus is being widened, they'd be on mine, especially if your list is 100 artists long.

[Levgan]

Lev - nice post on previous page, well written, you have a skill my friend.

Thanks mate, this is refreshing to hear because writing about music is what I basically do for a living – albeit I normally use another language

I don't agree with you that "proto-prog" is a distinct music style, sorry.

You're welcome! Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Last time we discussed this nobody agreed with me at all, and now Odin's my father, so either I have seriously improved my persuasion skills or the chariot of history is slowly turning my way

I agree with Trane that we need to separate 60s proto- bands from early 70s bands.

This seems a little puzzling. How would you do that if there are quite a few bands that started in the 1960s and continued into the early 1970s?

[enigmatic]

Odin would probably make my Top 100 list if we extend the timeline to 1972, and they were not really from Germany. ;-)

Another overlooked 1970 album, this time from Germany but with English vocals, Hammond organ driven early prog.

[Levgan]

Fwiw, For my taste, I'd have Northwind, Bodkin, TDTBP, Shape Of The Rain and Aubrey Small as essential, but I think they're not a real fit for the original list. If the focus is being widened, they'd be on mine, especially if your list is 100 artists long.

Northwind (I assume this refers to the Sister Brother Lover band) will probably be in my personal top 100 – excellent album. And damn, I really need to try those essential Shape of the Rain and Aubrey Small albums as those are two of the three from your post that I haven't heard!

[mogrooves]

I don't agree with you that "proto-prog" is a distinct music style

Agreed; it's not. It was more a zeitgeist than a musical style. Which is why...

...the term proto-prog includes different set of bands for different prog fans

[nosebone]

^ That's correct Mo, and I believe that's where we left it years ago when we first compiled the list.

[enigmatic]

Thanks mate, this is refreshing to hear because writing about music is what I basically do for a living – albeit I normally use another language

Listen, if you publish something about music and it gets translated to Polish or English let me know. I will definitely buy it. I used to be fluent in Russian language, but that was long long time ago. I used to write poems in Russian during high school years. :-)

This seems a little puzzling. How would you do that if there are quite a few bands that started in the 1960s and continued into the early 1970s?

You have to agree that the list in current form have lots of holes, it is not consistent. We call it Top 100 Proto-Prog, but not even one of the Nice or Moody Blues albums are included, and for many of us, the Nice and Moody Blues are Top proto-prog bands.
We need to consolidate the list by creating a marker. Let's say for now October 1969. The list will include the essential vintage late 60s and early 70s prog.
All the characteristics that you listed in your post on previous page apply to the albums from that period, NOT to the albums recorded before the marker.
At least that's my opinion.
The working title of the list: Vintage late 60s early 70s Prog.

[Progmatic]

Agreed, but just to clarify, I don't have any issues if the list that Miroslaw wants to compile will be focused on the "golden" period of 1967-1971. It will be what it is – a list of essential late 1960s / early 1970s proto-prog albums. The newer bands playing in the similar style would merit their own list, which I'll be happy to browse if it gets done because my knowledge of the current prog scene is limited and I'm almost 100% sure I missed a lot of exciting fringe / obscure records.
.

Agreed in that context of the original thread intent.

However I was responding to the question whether there can be proto-prog outside of the specified period and Trane implied that he would not mix proto-prog with the music mentioned in retro-prog thread.

So I am making a simple point here.

If proto-prog is indeed a sub-genre it can be reproduced any time.
If it is not a sub-genre than Miroslaw's proto-prog list is just list of prog specific to particular period. Therefore all the prog albums from that period should be included.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mogrooves]

...the Nice and Moody Blues are Top proto-prog bands.

...as are Procol Harum, and arguably Soft Machine Vol.II, both absent from the list.

[moecurlythanu]

Northwind (I assume this refers to the Sister Brother Lover band) will probably be in my personal top 100 – excellent album. And damn, I really need to try those essential Shape of the Rain and Aubrey Small albums as those are two of the three from your post that I haven't heard!

I think they're pretty great. Just bear in mind that they're not very complex. They have subtle Prog Rock markers, but you're not going to confuse them with Yes or King Crimson stylistically at any time. As I said, Rural Prog is where I would locate them, style-wise. The Aubrey Small CD reissue starts with the bonus track, which isn't Prog Rock, so don't let that turn you off either, if you pick up that CD.

[enigmatic]

...as are Procol Harum, and arguably Soft Machine Vol.II, both absent from the list.

Mo, Procol Harum' s "Shine on Brightly" was included on the list.

[mogrooves]

Mo, Procol Harum' s "Shine on Brightly" was included on the list.

Ah, yes, and as well it should be, "In Held T'was In I" being perhaps the apotheosis of proto-Prog.

[enigmatic]

If it is not a sub-genre than proto-prog list is just list of prog specific to particular period. Therefore all the prog albums from that period should be included.

We purposely didn't/don't want include ALL prog bands to give more attention to obscure, lesser known bands. Otherwise the final list would be boring and full of usual suspects.
Only people who are in constant look-out for old (but new to their ears) obscure music will understand the concept of proto/early-prog list.

[Levgan]

Listen, if you publish something about music and it gets translated to Polish or English let me know. I will definitely buy it. I used to be fluent in Russian language, but that was long long time ago. I used to write poems in Russian during high school years. :-)

Thanks for the kind words, and wow! I could never write decent poetry in any language, but especially in Russian – God knows how many times I tried to write a goddamn lyric for my band and failed miserably.

You have to agree that the list in current form have lots of holes, it is not consistent.

I agree and I really like your idea of compiling a big list and then eliminating entries by way of voting. Not sure creating a perfect list is possible – but perhaps we can make it a little better indeed. Though I guess what ultimately will make a list (and this thread!) more worthwhile (for me) is if people add more albums that are worth hearing (like Mark did with Aubrey Small etc. and I tried to do with Sweet Slag), rather than arguing about what constitutes proto-prog and what does not.

We need to consolidate the list by creating a marker. Let's say for now October 1969.

I have to admit this is where my knowledge falters. I was never enough of an archivist to find out the month of release, in fact I even get the years mixed up every now and then! So is Mercator Projected before or after October? What about Valentyne Suite, Sea Shanties, Rare Bird or Chapter Three?

The working title of the list: Vintage late 60s early 70s Prog.

UK only or wider?

[enigmatic]

I have to admit this is where my knowledge falters. I was never enough of an archivist to find out the month of release, in fact I even get the years mixed up every now and then! So is Mercator Projected before or after October? What about Valentyne Suite, Sea Shanties, Rare Bird or Chapter Three?

To be honest with you I don't even know [i]Mercator Projected[/] month of the release. I wrote October as an approximate marker. The sound is more important than the time of the release. Do the music on these albums is closer to the early 70s albums' sound or closer to 60s sound? I see them as albums released in 1969 but already with 70s sound. :-)

UK only or wider?

I think we should keep the same format that we used when preparing the original list, so wider than just UK. We already have few German, 1 Swiss and 1 Scandinavian band. I am sure we can come up with few more bands outside UK worth adding to the list.

[Digital_Man]

^ I typically refer to progressiverock.com(aka strawberry bricks)for specific release dates(well, the month anyway) and also sometimes wikipedia or allmusic. Sometimes the month is known and sometimes it isn't. For Mercator Projected the exact month doesn't seem to be listed anywhere.

I've always wondered what other albums could be considered "real prog" besides that obvious one(with the red face cover)but it doesn't seem like anyone can agree on what they are(if they even exist). I have my opinions which I have expressed before but I'm not going to convince anyone. So if Joe B. wants to think album x is the first bla bla blah album so be it.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

Ah, yes, and as well it should be, "In Held T'was In I" being perhaps the apotheosis of proto-Prog.

I'll drink to that!

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

To be honest with you I don't even know [i]Mercator Projected[/] month of the release. I wrote October as an approximate marker. The sound is more important than the time of the release. Do the music on these albums is closer to the early 70s albums' sound or closer to 60s sound? I see them as albums released in 1969 but already with 70s sound. :-)


I think we should keep the same format that we used when preparing the original list, so wider than just UK. We already have few German, 1 Swiss and 1 Scandinavian band. I am sure we can come up with few more bands outside UK worth adding to the list.

Agreed. and in so doing need to extend the timeline a bit, for things like Cornucopia, Eulenspygel etc.

[Trane]

^ I typically refer to progressiverock.com(aka strawberry bricks)for specific release dates(well, the month anyway) and also sometimes wikipedia or allmusic. Sometimes the month is known and sometimes it isn't. For Mercator Projected the exact month doesn't seem to be listed anywhere.

Helping Charles with his next book, and if there are lots of month dates in his timeline, you won't find much for this kind of list

I think RYM is a relatively good source (and my guess, SB's source of info)

Agreed. and in so doing need to extend the timeline a bit, for things like Cornucopia, Eulenspygel etc.

We could easily good to mid-73, IMHO

after all, I mean the time frame is only one of the guidelines and maybe not the main one to focus on

[Svetonio]

Odin would probably make my Top 100 list if we extend the timeline to 1972, and they were not really from Germany. ;-)

Another overlooked 1970 album, this time from Germany but with English vocals, Hammond organ driven early prog.

As per your own merits, you can extend the timeline to 1975.



At Armegeddon s/t LP (1975), there's not Hammond organ though, but it's without any synths and there's a trippy harmonica and a harp by Renaissance co-founder Keith Relf (RIP) that the album in general sounds great, but - it was a "retro" sound already in the mid-seventies when I bought my copy.

[enigmatic]

We could easily good to mid-73, IMHO

after all, I mean the time frame is only one of the guidelines and maybe not the main one to focus on

I agree the time frame is just a guideline but we are after the sound. Good example is Kestrel, album released in 1975, but perfectly fits what we are looking for. The album sounds like something created in early 70s.
The best way to expand the list is to look for prototypical bands that ignited our interests in this type of music: Gnidrolog, Cressida, Gracious, Samurai/Web, Marsupilami and then look for similar sounding bands.

[Calabasas_Trafalgar]

I agree the time frame is just a guideline but we are after the sound. Good example is Kestrel, album released in 1975, but perfectly fits what are looking for. The album sounds like something created in early 70s.
The best way to expand the list is to look for prototypical bands that ignited our interests in this type of music: Gnidrolog, Cressida, Gracious, Samurai/Web, Marsupilami and then look for similar sounding bands.
Sorry I won't be able to write a lot this weekend. This is a long weekend in USA, Monday is a holiday, I am away on skiing trip.

Yes, Kestrel belongs, date notwithstanding. A few others which could go on date notwithstanding are England's Garden Shed and Nostradamus by First Aid.